S I ANGREJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sub-Inspector Angrez Singh, petitioner herein, was not allowed to serve beyond the age of 55 years and was given 90 days notice on the expiry of which he was deemed to have retired in accordance with the order dated 29.7.1991. The petitioner challenges this order in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner had been recruited as a Head Constable on 1.3.1975. After considerable period of service the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 31.1.1985 and as Sub Inspector in the Hary- ana Police on 15.7.1990. Certain adverse entries were recorded in the confidential reports of the petitioner from 1.8.1981 to 31.3.1986. According to the petitioner the respondents could not have compulosorily retired and decline him extension for service beyond 55 years keeping in view his service record and particularly the fact that he was promoted as Sub-Inspector only on 15.7.1990 and more than 70 per cent of his reports were good in the last 10 years. Resultantly, even in accordance with the Government instructions, the impugned order is totally arbitrary and is unsustainable in law.

(3.) Upon notice the respondents filed reply and justified the impugned order. It was specifically stated that respondents have looked into the entire service record of the petitioner and keeping in view the adverse entries in the confidential reports of the petitioner and his over-all performance, the impugned order was passed in public interest. The confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1981-82 was average, for the year 1983-84 it was below average, for the year 1984-85 there was adverse report and integrity of the petitioner was found to be doubtful, for the year 1985-86 he was again adjudged as average. On the basis of this service record, the respondents have passed the impugned order. It is also stated that representations made by the petitioner against the said entries were also rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon on 17.5.1987. On 20.12.1987 the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner in that behalf was also rejected. The petitioner had never challenged those entries in any proceedings earlier. The order in regard to compulsory retirement of the petitioner was served upon him on 29.7.1991 and the representation against the said order was also dismissed by the concerned D.I.G. vide order dated 30.10.1991, which was also communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.11.1991 of the department.