STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ARJAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case apparently is an example of blatant misuse of power. An Inspector of Police was sent packing by directing his premature retirement by flouting all norms. His record at the time of passing the order was good/very good and there was no adverse entry. Still he was prematurely retired by DIG in arbitrary exercise of powers which would only reflect his bias, motive and spite. The facts as noticed hereinafter would clearly reveal that Senior Police Officer, Incharge of Police range had been unfair in dealing with the respondent. It is rather unpalatable to notice that even the 1G, failed to correct the misuse of power and thereby became partner in allowing the illegality to perpetuate.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff, Arjan Lal assumed charge as Inspector Police w.e.f. February, 1984 in Ferozepur range. On 15.2.1984, all of sudden, he was served an order prematurely retiring him under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The monarchical command was issued by Sh. R. Syrangal, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur. The respondent-plaintiff was left with hardly any option but to assail this order by filing a suit. Since he had failed in his appeal before the IG police, he also challenged the order passed by the Inspector General of Police dated 14.06.1984. Plea was that these orders were illegal null and void. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed by Sub Judge, Gurdaspur declaring that the impugned orders were illegal and not binding upon the respondent. Court further directed that respondent-plaintiff would be deemed to be in service from the date of his premature retirement till the date of his actual retirement. Trial court, however, denied pay to the respondent-plaintiff for the period, he had remained out of service by applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay'.

(3.) The State as well as the respondent-plaintiff impugned the said order passed by the trial Court. Respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved against part of the order denying wages for the period he remained out of service. The First Appellate Court came to the rescue of the respondent-plaintiff and allowed his appeal but dismissed the appeal filed by the State. State has come up in this Regular Second Appeal.