RAJ SINGH DAHIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 28.9.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge up-holding the order of premature retirement. The appellant was enrolled as Constable on 3.7.1973 and was further promoted as Head Constable in the year 1989. He earned further promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2000 and as Sub Inspector w.e.f. 1.10.2008. His suitability for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years was adjudged. Three months notice was issued to the appellant by the respondents proposing to retire him from service on the expiry of the notice period.

(2.) In the reply filed by the respondents, what weighed with the learned Single Judge for supporting the order of compulsory retirement was his service record. The service record of the appellant was examined which revealed that he was awarded censure for carelessness and indiscipline in the year 1995. Again in the year 2003, he was awarded censure for extortion of money from the truck driver. He was further censured for not sending the form of the arrested accused for verification. The petitioner was under suspension at the time of scrutiny of his case for extension of period of service beyond 55 years of age for the reason that he did not arrest one accused wanted in FIR registered under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. When FIR was registered, petitioner was Incharge of Police Station Sector 9, Gurgaon. After murder had taken place on 29.4.2009, he was associated with the investigation of this criminal case with the Investigating Officer. One accused, Ravinder Kumar had confessed that he alongwith Vinod were involved in this murder case. The appellant being a witness to this confession had signed the confession memo. Another FIR was recorded under Sec. 307 Indian Penal Code on the statement made by accused Vinod. The appellant investigated the FIR but did not arrest Vinod who was wanted in the murder case. Thus he was found careless, negligent and having been mixed up with the criminals which was a stigma on his integrity. Accordingly, he was not found fit for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years in public interest.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel at some length and are of the view that the appeal does not merit admission and is liable to be dismissed. The respondents have taken into account the entire service record of the petitioner in terms of the judgement of Honourable the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1020. Naturally various punishments awarded to the appellant have been touching his integrity which have weighed with the authorities as well as the learned Single Judge. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the penultimate para of the judgement which reads thus: