The Allahabad High Court ruled that an employee cannot be required to prove that adverse remarks in his confidential reports were never communicated, placing the burden of proof on the department.
Court Finds Department Failed to Show Communication
A two‑judge bench led by Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held that the tribunal erred by expecting the petitioner to demonstrate a negative fact. “It will appear from above the Tribunal found omission on part of petitioner to demonstrate that he had not been communicated the adverse entries,” the judges wrote. The judges emphasized that “it was up to the department to demonstrate communication.”
Related: Supreme Court Digest Released for 2026
The former Station Officer retired in 1999 and complained that he was passed over for promotion while junior colleagues advanced. His grievance was dismissed by the Director General of Police (DGP) on 6 April 2010, citing adverse remarks in his confidential reports and an earlier censure. The subsequent tribunal dismissed his claim on 30 November 2012, and a review petition was rejected on 10 June 2013 for lack of evidence that the entries had not been communicated.
Procedural History Highlights Delays and Missed Evidence
After the tribunal’s decision, a writ petition was filed and dismissed for “non‑prosecution” on 16 February 2015. A restoration application was later rejected on 11 December 2025. The petitioner, now over 85, traveled from Parasoeli Odamapur in Etawah district to attend each hearing, prompting the court to note his diligence.
Article 226 of the Constitution imposes no strict limitation period, but the bench said “delay is seen to militate against the Court exercising its extraordinary power.” Restoration applications follow a different procedural track, governed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows extensions if the applicant shows sufficient cause.
Related: Slip and Fall Accidents in Tampa: What Property Owners Don’t Want You to Know
During the hearing, the bench directed the department to provide an English translation of the DGP’s order and to produce the marksheet tabulation showing scores of successful candidates and the petitioner. The Chief Standing Counsel reported that requests for records and a conversant officer had gone unanswered.
The Court observed that the DGP’s own order recorded that the petitioner had been questioned in the interview on his service record, departmental rules, and police procedures.