IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1981-1998 (O&M) Lachhman Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Haryana State through Collector, Hisar, District Hisar . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 03.07.2025 Pronounced on: 04.07.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Vishal Khatri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. It is plain'ff’s regular second appeal against concurrent findings of the courts below. 2. Plain'ff (appellant herein) had joined the service of Haryana State as a Constable and at the relevant 'me, he was holding the post of Sub- Inspector. In the confiden'al report recorded by SP, Hisar for the period 26.06.1991 to 31.03.1992, though the SP concerned gave him good report but the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar recorded the remarks as “A Cor- rupt Sub-Inspector”. It was further recorded that there were number of com- plaints against him during his pos'ng as SHO Police Sta'on Ra'a and as such, his category was changed to ‘C’. The said adverse remarks recorded by DIG in the confiden'al report were conveyed to plain'ff on 15.02.1993 through the Su- perintendent of Police, Sirsa. He made a representa'on but the same was re- jected vide order dated 07.10.1993. Plain'ff assailed the adverse remarks recorded by the DIG and the rejec'on of the representa'on to be null, illegal NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1981-1998 (O&M) and void on the ground that the adverse remarks were not supported by any reason and that there was no basis to record these remarks, inasmuch as had there been any complaints of corrup'on against him, the same should have been inquired into as per rules. 3. Defendants- respondents herein contested the suit by submi=ng that plain'ff had earned number of adverse reports regarding corrup'on, negli- gence in service career and that he had failed to discharge his du'es to the sat- isfac'on of his superiors. It was pointed out that during the period from 01.04.1982 to 31.03.1983, 01.04.1983 to 09.07.1983, 10.07.1983 to 31.03.1984 and 01.04.1985 to 03.03.1986, the plain'ff had earned adverse remarks regard- ing integrity. These adverse remarks were expunged by the departmental repre- senta'ons or the orders of the Court, and that the impugned adverse remarks in the ACR for 1991-92 were recorded by the DIG on the basis of complaints of cor- rup'on received against him as well as on the basis of personal knowledge of the repor'ng officer and it is because of this reason that he was transferred from Hisar to Sirsa. It was stated further that no formal inquiry was required re- garding the allega'ons of corrup'on, as none of the complainants was willing to give formal complaint. Prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 4. ABer framing necessary issues, taking evidence produced by the par'es and hearing both the sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.09.1996 and those findings were affirmed by the first Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the plain'ff on 21.02.1998. 5. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plain'ff that there was no material on record to support the adverse remarks made by the concerned DIG in the ACR of the plain'ff regarding corrup'on or any other misconduct and as such, the im- pugned remarks in the ACR deserves to be expunged. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel urges that the remarks are recorded by the concerned officer based upon the subjec've sa'sfac'on and that there is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1981-1998 (O&M) recorded by the Courts below. 7. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and finds no merit in the present appeal. 8. It has been rightly observed by the first Appellate Court that An- nual Confiden'al Report is a subjec've opinion of the Repor'ng Officer and it has to be formed on an objec've appraisal of the material. The assessment, by its very nature is subjec've and that it is not possible to collect direct evidence of corrup'on. The adverse remarks can be made by the officer on the basis of mere assessment of the performance of the concerned employee and that no inquiry or opportunity to represent is required, before making any such re- marks. 9. As such, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the con- current findings as recorded by the Courts below, calling for any interference. No merits. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 04.07.2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document