LexVINOD KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 471 VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 392 of 2008) ' :/ OCTOBER 24, 2013 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Service Law: A B c Annual confidential Report - Adverse entry - Representation against - Rejection of - Second representation against the adverse entry after substantial lapse of time, after having exhausted all the departmental remedies unsuccessfully - Expunction of the remarks - 0 Restoration of adverse remark on the ground that second representation not permissible - Held: Second representation was not maintainable - It was against the Office Policy Instructions of the year 1962 and Standing Order of the year 1999 and also made after lapse of substantial time - E Restoration of adverse remarks was correct. Annual Confidential Report - Adverse entry - Representation against - Rejection of - Review against - Before higher authority - Expunction of adverse remarks - Restoration of adverse remarks on the ground that second F representation against the remarks not maintainable - Held: Restoration of adverse remarks were not correct,· as there was no second representation to the same authority - In fact, it was review to higher authority within statutorily prescribed period which is permissible under the Service Rules - G Dismissal of the official on the basis of the adverse remarks is also nbt tenable. Disciplinary proceeding - Penalty imposed on the 471 H 472 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R. A officials - Revoked on their moving mercy petition, which was moved by them after exhausting all the departmental remedies - Restoration of penalty - Held: The penalty was rightly restored - Under disciplinary rules, no remedy is available after revision petition - In the present cases, after B dismissal of revision petition, another petition raising plea of mercy would not be permissible - The mercy petition was also not filed within time - Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - r. 16. 32. Administrative Law: C Administrative order - Judicial Review - Scope of - Held: Interference with the order of administrative authority is permissible, if it is irrational, unreasonable or there is procedural impropriety. 0 Administrative decision - Scope of - Held: Administrative decision must be related to the purpose of enabling provisions of Rules or Statutes - The authority has to act within the limits of the Rules framed delineating the powers of the authority as well as the procedure to be followed. E Administrative decision -· Decision of predecessor officer F G H - Overturning of - By the successor officer - Held: The successor officer is not entitled to review and reopen the cases decided by his predecessor, unless the order is without jurisdiction, or ultra vires or was exfacie an act of favouratism. Administrative .review - Held: Illegal or ultra vires decisions which fall within scope of judicial review, can be undone by the administrative authorities themselves by review of such orders, by following principles of natural justice. The present Appeals/Petitions are categorized in three groups on factual basis. First Group In the first group of cases, adverse entries were made VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 473 in the Annual Confidential Reports of the police officials A in question. The said adverse remarks were expunged after substantial lapse of time after obtaining fresh representation, even after all the departmental remedies had been exhausted unsuccessfully. After issuing notice to the officials concerned, the earlier orders were B restored. These orders were challenged by the officials concerned, by filing writ petition. The same were dismissed by High Court. Hence Civil Appeal Nos. 392/ 2008, 393/2008, 395/2008, 402/2008, 405/2008 and SLP(C) No. 5080/2008 were filed. c Second Group: In this group of cases, the order rejecting the representation questioning adverse entries, were challenged in revision to the higher authority immediately D thereafter. The authority expunged 1he adverse remarks. In these cases also order giving adverse remarks were restored after issuing show cause notice, on the ground that no second representation lied against adverse remarks. Writ petitions (of the appellants/petitioners in E C.A. Nos. 396/2008, 400/2008 and SLP No.s. 32653/2011 and 3932/2008) challenging the orders were dismissed by High Court holding that second representation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.