http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SWATANTAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY,  G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division  Bench of  the High  Court of Punjab & Haryana. made on October 7, 1996 in CWP No.15698/96.      The admitted  facts are  that while  the petitioner was working as  a Sub-Inspector  of Police in Faridabad District in  Gurgaon   Range,  adverse   entries  were  made  in  his confidential report  for the  period from  April 25, 1994 to March 31,  1995. The  same came to be communicated to him by the Superintendent  of Police,  Faridadad on August 2, 1995. The representation  made by  the petitioner  was rejected by the Deputy  Inspector General of Police by proceedings dated December 21,  1995. His  further representation was rejected by the  Director General  of Police  in his letter dated May 13, 1996.  It was stated therein that there was no provision for second  representation. When  the petitioner  moved  the High  Court   under  Article  226,  the  writ  petition  was dismissed.      The entries  made by  the Superintendent of Police were as under:      "1.  Honesty            :     Report of corruption      2.   Reliability        :     Unreliable      3.   Defects            :     For improving, called                                    several times and                                    advised.      4.   General Remarks    :     Can become a good                                    police officer if he                                    can control corruption                                    and temptation."      The contention  of Shri  Rambir Yadav,  learned counsel for the  petitioner, is  that the  High  Court  has  wrongly dismissed the  writ petition  in view  of the  settled legal position that if the adverse remarks impinge upon the career petitioner,  the   representation   made   to   the   higher authorities  requires   consideration  and   that  rejection thereof must  be supported  by reasons.  The remarks made by the Superintendent  of Police  are  vague  and  without  any particulars and,  therefore, the  rejection  of  the  second representation is unjust and unfair to the petitioner and is also arbitrary.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    We find  no force in the contention. It is true that in view  of  the  settled  legal  position,  the  object  of  a Government servant  and communication of the adverse remarks is to afford an opportunity to the concerned officer to make amends to his remiss; to reform himself; to mend his conduct and to  be disciplined,  to  mend  his  conduct  and  to  be disciplined, to  do hardwork, to bring home his lapse in his integrity and  character so  that he  corrects  himself  and improves the  efficiency in  public  service.  The  entries, therefore, require  and objective assessment of the work and conduct of  a Government servant reflecting as accurately as possible his  sagging  inefficiency  and  incompetency.  The defects and  deficiencies brought  home to  the officer, are means to  to the  end of  correcting  himself  and  to  show improvement towards  excellence.  The  confidential  report, therefore,  would   contain  the  assessment  of  the  work, devotion to duty and integrity of the officer concerned. The aforestated  entries   indicate   and   reflect   that   the Superinteeent of  Police had  assessed the reputation of the officer, his  honesty,  relibility  and  general  reputation gathered around  the officer’s  Performance of  the duty and shortfalls in that behalf.      It is  sad but  a bitter  reality  that  corruption  is corroding, like  cancerous lymph  nodes, the  vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his  sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly  and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of  the duties  of his  post. The  reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of  the officer  and gain notoreity much faster than the smoke.  Sometimes, there may not be concrete or material evidence to make it part of the record. It would, therefore, may be  impracticable  for  the  reporting  officer  of  the competent  controlling  officer  writhing  the  confidential report to  give specific  instances of shortfalls, supported by evidence,  like the remarks made by the Superintendent of Police. More  often, the corrupt officer manipulates in such a way  and leaves  no traceable  evidence to be made part of the record  for being  cited as specific instance. It would, thus, appear  that the order does not contain or the officer writing the report could not give particulars of the corrupt activities of  the petitioner. He honestly assessed that the petitioner would  prove himself  efficient officer, provided he  controls  his  temptation  for  corruption.  That  would clearly indicate  the fallibility  of the petitioner, vis-a- vis  the   alleged   acts   of   corruption.   Under   these circumstances, it  cannot be  said that  the remarks made in the confidential  report are  vague without  any particulars and, therefore,  cannot be  sustained. It  is seen  that the officers made  the remarks on the basis of the reputation of the petitioner.  It was,  therefore, for  him to improve his conduct, prove  honesty and  integrity in  future  in  which event, obviously,  the authority  for the subsequent period. The appellate  authority duly  considered and  rejected  the contention of  the petitioner. Repeated representation could render little  service.  Rejection,  therefore,  is  neither arbitrary nor illegal.      The special leave netition, therefore, does not warrant interference. It is accordingly dismissed.