DHANI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was employed with the respondents (Central Reserve Police Force) on 8th November, 1962 as Constable. He was firstly posted at Tripura but subsequently applied for transfer to Delhi for the reason that he got two minor daughters who were studying in the school treated at Delhi who were physically handicapped being deaf and dumb. For this purpose the department acceded to the request of the petitioner.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the entire period of 27 years of service, the petitioner was never charge- sheeted. He did not avail a single casual leave during 1988-89. He never absented and attending to his duties diligently. The petitioner was surprised to receive retirement order dated 14th September, 1989 compulsorily retiring him from service under Rule 43-C (i) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 read with Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 by the Commandant, CRPF giving him three months notice computed from the date of service of the notice on him. The petitioner received the said notice on 22nd September, 1989. Soon thereafter he received letter dated 18th September, 1989 communicating him adverse re- marks by the Commandant 68th Battalion CRPF, New Delhi. These remarks were only for the period of one year i.e. from 1.4.88 to 31.3.89. It will be pertinent to mention the said communication, which Beads as follows:-

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner made a representation dated 1st October, 1989 in which he had specifically mentioned that had the case of the petitioner been reviewed timely i.e. before the intended date of retirement there would have been no adverse remarks to debar him from earning approval of further service till he attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner further mentioned in his representa- tion that only one adverse remarks which was communicated, reads as follows:-