RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ in the nature of certiorari has been prayed for to be issued to quash the order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure-P-4), vide which petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired and to quash the order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure-P-6), rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, despite acquittal in a criminal case registered against the petitioner.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that while serving as a Head Constable with the respondents, a false case of corruption was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No. 15, dated 9.4.2007, under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak. On the basis of registration of FIR apart from the criminal case, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which he was held guilty of the charges levelled against him, resulting in imposition of punishment of dismissal from service, vide order dated 26.2.2008 (Annexure-P-1). Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, which was dismissed on 10.4.2008. Petitioner filed revision petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana, who vide order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure-P-2), reduced punishment of dismissal from service to that of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect. Duration between the date of dismissal to the date of re-joining was ordered to be treated as extra-ordinary leave without pay. Notice for compulsory retirement dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure-P-3) was served upon the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Panipat, giving him three months notice. Thereafter, vide order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure-P- 4), petitioner was retired from service with effect from 11.9.2009 (A.N.) on expiry of three months' notice. Petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, which was rejected, vide order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure-P-6). In the criminal case which was registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Panipat, vide judgment dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure-P-5), giving him benefit of doubt as the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner and rejection of the appeal, is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside on the ground that the respondents have proceeded to retire the petitioner from service merely on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him and is facing trial. He contends that after acquittal of the petitioner by the trial Court, against which no appeal has been preferred by the State, the said order having been attained finality and mere registration of a criminal case and employee facing trial therein cannot be a ground for passing an order of compulsory retirement. His further submission is that as per the Haryana Government instructions for prematurely retiring an employee, there must be less than 70% good reports and there must be no adverse entry with regard to integrity in the ten preceding years prior to the date of his retirement. There is no adverse entry recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports (in short 'ACR'), what to say of adverse entry with regard to the integrity of the petitioner during this period. Since the mandate of the statutory Rules has been violated, the impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.