MAWASI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of three writ petitioners (bearing Nos. CWP 3289, 6196 and 8538 of 2001). The petitioners in these cases were working a Sub Inspector of Police when they were compulsory retired from service. They joined at the grass -root level of constable and earned promotions as Head Constable/Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector. The only point urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned orders of retirement were passed by the Superintendent of Police and, therefore they are passed by the authority not competent to retire them and hence the same are illegal and, therefore, they should be quashed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that the Deputy Inspector General would be the competent authority to pass the order of retirement. Counsel for the respondents has relied on rule 12.1. of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). It has mentioned the appointing authority of certain class of police officers. According to the rule for Sergents, Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspector, Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent (Administrative), Government Railway Police and Assistant Superintendent, Government Railway Police are the authority to whom the power of appointment is delegated. Relying on this, learned State counsel urged that the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be substantiated. So far rule 12.1 of the Rules is concerned, there is no dispute from the side of the petitioners. However, they contend that the rule 12.1 of the Rules is applicable to those police officers who are directly appointed to the posts of Sub Inspector or Assistant Sub Inspectors but does not apply to the promotees to the said posts. For promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, the rule is 13.9 of the Rules (there is a difference in rule 13.9 applicable to the State of Haryana and rule 13.9 applicable to the State of Punjab). The rule 13.9 applicable to the State of Haryana is as under :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has relied on the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana 1989(2) SLR 345. In that case learned Single Judge of this Court held that when the petitioner was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police by the Deputy Inspector General and the Deputy Inspector General also allowed him to continue in service beyond 55 years and the representation against adverse remarks was pending, as no time was given to represent against the adverse remarks communicated recently, the Superintendent of Police could not be considered to be the appointing authority of the petitioner and the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner passed was held to be without jurisdiction.