Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a set of appeals filed by the State of Haryana against the impugned judgment whereby the Single Judge allowed two writ petitions directing the State to grant the respondent/ policewoman notional promotion accompanied by all her service benefits, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., dismissed the appeals, concurring that the adverse remarks entered in the ACR of the policewoman and the compulsory retirement order passed on the said basis were arbitrary due to the complete lack of material to justify the same.
Background
In 1988, the respondent, a policewoman, was appointed as a Constable. Due to her exemplary performance, the Director General of Police (‘DGP’), promoted her to the post of Head Constable along with a cash prize and special diet in 1995. However, she noticed that she did not actually receive the promotion. Aggrieved, she preferred a civil suit seeking a declaration that she was legally entitled to the said post.
The Civil Suit was decreed, but the Additional District Judge overturned it. Thereafter, the Appellate Court (the High Court) restored the decree and judgment. In the implementation of the said judgment, the policewoman was granted promotion to the post of Head Constable, increased pay, and seniority. In lieu of consequential orders, she was granted due date promotions as Assistant Sub-Inspector (‘ASI’) and to the post of Sub-Inspector on an officiating basis.
Thereafter, she was posted to Udyog Vihar Police Station but later transferred to Police Line, Gurugram, despite there being no complaints against her. She was also issued an advisory note alleging that she was interfering in the work of the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) of the Udyog Vihar Police Station, which amounted to dereliction of duty and brought her integrity under doubt.
In 2014, while the policewoman was working as an Additional Station House Officer at Police Station, Udyog Vihar, adverse remarks were entered in her annual confidential reports (‘ACR’). Aggrieved, she challenged these remarks, but her representation was rejected by the DGP. She contended that the remarks had been recorded due to the personal bias of the SHO who had been harassing her. The policewoman approached the Additional Chief Secretary in this regard, but her plea was rejected again. Hence, she filed a writ petition in 2015.
In 2017, she was compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 years, which she challenged in a writ petition. The order of compulsory retirement was stayed by the Court, but the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Thereafter, in 2020, when she was deprived of her due promotion to the post of Inspector, she challenged the adverse remarks in a writ petition.
The Single Judge vide the impugned order decided the two writ petitions dated 2015 and 2020 in favour of the policewoman. The Single Judge directed that she be granted a notional promotion accompanied by all her service benefits, arrears of salary, pay benefits, etc., of that rank with effect from 2016 with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the day it became due, till the realization of the amount. The Single Judge also set aside the adverse remarks entered in the ACR.
Aggrieved, the State and other police officers filed the present appeals.
Analysis
The Court noted that the adverse remark of doubtful integrity was mentioned without any basis. The policewoman had earned 57 commendation certificates, two of which were first class awarded for outstanding performance of duty. In her 26-year-long service record, there was no red entry, and there had been no complaints against her. Thus, the Single Judge found that the adverse remark was wholly based on whims and fancies without there being any material document.
Rejecting the contention that the policewoman had misused the judicial remedy as she had already approached the Additional Chief Secretary, the Court stated that availing judicial remedy was different from preferring representation to the Government. The Court also noted that the representation filed before the Additional Chief Secretary was for expunging adverse remarks.
Further, upon perusal of the policewoman’s records, the Court noted that there was a specific mention of her being reliable, honest, dependable, and honest at all times with special appreciation. But it was only when she was posted as a Sub-Inspector under the SHO concerned that the adverse entry was made. In this regard, the Court referred to M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, (1998) 7 SCC 310, wherein the Court held that the authorities should not keep their eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of “doubtful integrity”, it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be a preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that the Single Judge correctly assessed the sharp contradiction that crept into the policewoman’s work record as she received a commendation certificate the same year as the adverse remarks. The Single Judge also noticed that the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, made adverse remarks in the ACR of the policewoman while the Deputy Commissioner did not find anything amiss with her record.
The Court stated that the remarks made in the annual performance appraisal report or ACR reflect the working of an individual. It creates civil rights because if the ACRs are toned down or adverse remarks are entered, the concerned person would be deprived of his promotion as well as the benefit of MACP for that period. Thus, before making any such remarks, reasons had to be mentioned. In this regard, the Court referred to Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, wherein the Supreme Court stressed that even lowering of ACRs from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Good’, may be treated as adverse and should be communicated to the concerned person. Further, the Court noted that the policewoman was supposed to retire on 31-10-2020 as per the order of superannuation issued by the DCP (Headquarters), but the Commissioner withdrew the order and compulsorily retired her 12 days before her due date of retirement.
Therefore, the Court held that it was satisfied that the adverse remarks entered in the service record of the policewoman and the compulsory retirement order passed on the said basis were arbitrary due to the complete lack of material to justify such record in the ACR.
However, noting that the High Court can only conduct judicial review but cannot act in the place of administrative authorities, the Court clarified that directions could not be issued by it to the State to consider the policewoman’s claim for promotion and pass suitable orders.
Thus, the relief granted to the policewoman was modified, and the State was directed to consider her candidature for promotion by ignoring the ACR entry and further granting all benefits from the said date of promotion. The Court directed that the policewoman shall be granted all consequential benefits, actual benefits with arrears of salary of the higher rank with interest at the rate of 12 percent. The Court also directed that the policewoman’s retiral benefits shall be accordingly revised, and arrears thereof shall be released with interest at the rate of 12 percent.
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
[State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, LPA No. 547 of 2021 (O&M), decided on 28-05-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellants: Deputy Advocate General of Haryana Saurabh Mohunta
For the respondent: Tejeshwar Singh
