The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee who says the adverse entries in his confidential reports were never communicated to him cannot be called upon to prove that negative. It held that it is for the department to demonstrate that communication was in fact made.

The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held,

“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 Tribunal appears to have lost sight that a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot. It was up to the department to demonstrate communication. Petitioner saying he had not been communicated the adverse entries of many years, could not be called upon to prove the negative. The Tribunal obviously erred in review of its earlier judgment based on the adverse entries, where the department had not resisted the case.”

The Court also held that a restoration application stands on a footing different from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, delay in the former being governed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permits extension of the prescribed period where the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause.

Petitioner retired in 1999 from the post of Station Officer. Before retirement he had made a representation grieving that he had been passed over for promotion while his juniors were promoted. It was rejected. He moved the High Court and obtained a direction upon the Director General of Police to consider his claim. The DGP, by order dated 6^th April 2010, rejected it, citing adverse remarks in his confidential reports and an earlier censure.

His claim petition before the Tribunal was dismissed on 30^th November 2012. The Tribunal recorded that the Presenting Officer, though present, advanced no argument, and found that the DGP had passed a reasoned and speaking order after considering all the facts. Petitioner then applied for review, contending that the adverse remarks had never been communicated to him. The review was dismissed on 10^th June 2013 on the finding that there was no satisfactory evidence that the entries had not been communicated.

The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's judgment was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16^th February 2015, and the restoration application was dismissed for want of prosecution by a co-ordinate bench on 11^th December 2025. The application before the bench was for recall of that order.

Petitioner, appearing in person and now more than 85 years old, travelled from Parasoeli Odamapur in district Etawah to attend Court on every date. Holding his conduct in prosecuting the case to have been of diligence, the Court observed,

“Fact is, his writ petition having had been dismissed for want of prosecution, his challenge to the order of the Tribunal was never heard on merit. So far as his intent to move the High Court under article 226 in the Constitution of India is concerned, there is no prescribed period on limitation but delay is seen to militate against the Court exercising its extraordinary power. Restoration applications, however, stand on different footing.”

Relying on the Supreme Court's declaration on condonation of delay in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, the Court proceeded to look into the merits of the petitioner's case for the purpose of first dealing with the question of delay.

Earlier in the hearing the Court had directed the department to place an English translation of the DGP's order on record and had called upon the State to produce the marksheet tabulation showing the marks obtained by the successful candidates and by the petitioner. Chief Standing Counsel submitted that though he had written to the Principal Secretary and the DGP for records and a conversant officer, no instruction had been received.

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, and awarded marks after a personality test, yet nothing was produced to show how he had been assessed, in sealed cover or otherwise.

“State has no answer to the DGP having said that petitioner was considered for promotion yet there is no record of his assessment, in sealed cover or otherwise. This on top of State's omission to demonstrate that the adverse remarks were communicated to petitioner, based on which promotion was said to have been denied. The denial of promotion based on the adverse entries do not support the DGP's statement that petitioner was considered for promotion. We are convinced that petitioner was treated unfairly.”

Allowing the restoration applications and restoring the writ petition to file and number, the Court quashed the Tribunal's judgment and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Civil Police with effect from 16^th March 1980. It clarified that promotional salary and benefits are to be computed from 16^th March 1980 till the date of the petitioner's retirement and that corresponding retiral benefits must also be given.

Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Click Here To Read/Download Order