SWATANTAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                             SWATANTAR SINGH                                     A
                                        v.
                      STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                MARCH 3, 1997

               (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT~, JJ.]                             B

          Service Law :

           Annual Confidential Report-Adverse entries-Sub-Inspector of
    Police-Given adverse emries in respect of his honesty and reliability-Writ C
    petition challenging the remarks as vague and without any particulars--lt was
    also pleaded that the subsequent representation was wrongly rejected holding
    that there was no provision for second representation-Writ petition dismissed
    by High Court-Held the remarks were made 011 the basis of reputation of the
    delinquent-They cannot be said to be vague and without any par-
    ticulars-Repeated representation could render little servic~ejection thereof D
    is neither illegal nor arbitrary.

         CIVIi,. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 4013 of 1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10 ..96 of the Punjab &             E
    Haryana High Court in W.P. No.15698 of 1996.


-         Ranbir Yadav for the Petitioner.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                 F
         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
    Sub-fospector of Police in Faridabad District in Gurgaon Range, adverse      G
    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, Faridabad on August 2, 1995. The repre-
    sentation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy IllSpector
    General of police by proceedings dated December 21, 1995. His further        H
                                       639
    640                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1997] 2 S.C.R.
                                                                              ,
A   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 :
B
             "l. Honesty              Report of corruption

             2. Reliability           Unreliable

             3. Defects               For improving, called several
c                                     times and advised.

             4. General Remarks :     Can become a good police
                                      officer if he can control
                                      corruption and temptation."

D          The contention of Shri Ranbir 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 prospect of the petitioner, the representation made to the
    higher authorities requires consideration and that rejection thereof must
E   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.

          We find no force in the contention. It is true that in view of the
F settled legal position, the object of writing the Confidential Reports or
    Character Roll 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 do hardwork, to bring home his lapse in his integrity and
    character so that he corrects himself and improves the efficiency in public
G service. The·entries, therefore, require an 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 the end of correcting himself
    and to show improvement towards excellence. The confidential report,
H therefore, would contain the assessment of the work, devotion to duty·and
                          SWATANTAR SINGH v. STATE                            641

    integrity of the officer concerned. The aforestated entries indicate and A
    reflect that the Superintendent of Police had assessed the reputation of the
    officer, his honesty, reliability 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 can-
    cerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of B
    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, honest-
    ly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his
    post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds C
    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 or the competent controlling officer writing the confiden-
    tial report to give specific instances of shortfalls, supported by evidence,
    like the remarks made by the Superintendent of Police. More often, the · D
    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 E
    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 p
    to improve his conduct, prove honesty and integrity in future in which
-   event, obviously, the authority would appreciate and make necessary
    remarks for the subsequent period. The appellate authority duly con-
    sidered and rejected the contention of the petitioner. Repeated repre-
    sentation could render little service. Rejeetion, therefore, is neither
    arbitrary nor illegal.·                                                           G

~          The special leave petition, therefore, does not warrant interference.
    It is accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                                      Petition dismissed.