MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahabir Singh petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondent and it has been prayed by the petitioner that the order Annexure P-5, passed by respondent No. 1, and the show cause notice dated 24.6.1999, Annexure P-1, issued by respondent No. 2, be quashed and directions be given to respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till the age of superannuation.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was born on 8.6.1949. He joined the Haryana Police as Constable on 18.12.1971. In due course he was promoted to different posts on the basis of his eligibility and performance. He has already completed 25 years of qualifying service on 17.12.1996. During his service, he had number of commendation certificates. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 on the basis of some misconception issued a show cause notice to him proposing to retire him compulsorily from service in public interest under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules. The grounds stated by the department were as follows :- JUDGEMENT_189_LAWS(P&H)11_2001.JP2.html

(3.) On receipt of the above accusation, the petitioner filed explanation. He submitted that charge No. 1 relates to the year 1984 and cannot in any way be taken as an ground for retiring him prematurely after 16 years. He further stated that with regard to the punishment of censure in 1996 for taking bribe from the accused in case FIR No. 24 dated 21.1.1996, under Sections 451/506/34 I.P.C. the competent authority has already dropped the proceedings on merits after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer. The general remarks during the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995, which were conveyed to the petitioner, show that he has above average capabilities and, therefore, these remarks cannot be termed as adverse from any angle. The general remarks for the period 27.5.1995 to 31.3.1996 have already been expunged by the compulsory retirement vide order dated 26.4.1994. The report for the period 22.5.1996 to 10.12.1996, which was conveyed to the petitioner, has already been dropped by the compulsory retirement on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer and in these circumstances, no valid basis for compulsory retirement of the petitioner remain to be considered. The petitioner has given satisfactory reply to the show cause notice and still the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed against the petitioner in an illegal, arbitrary and mala fide manner and, therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.