The companytention of Shri Rambir Yadav, learned companynsel 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 companysideration and that rejection thereof must be supported by reasons.
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 companyfidential report for the period from April 25, 1994 to March 31, 1995.
The entries made by the Superintendent of Police were as under Honesty Report of companyruption Reliability Unreliable Defects For improving, called several times and advised.
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.
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
When the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226, the writ petition was dismissed.
made on October 7, 1996 in CWP No.15698/96.
The same came to be companymunicated to him by the Superintendent of Police, Faridadad on August 2, 1995.
It was stated therein that there was numberprovision for second representation.
