OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) vide which the petitioner has been taken back in service on expunging of the adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report for the period from 12.6.2008 to 2009 by the Director General of Police vide order dated 20.6.2011. Earlier for the period in question i.e. 12.6.2008 to 2009 integrity of the petitioner was doubted which resulted in issuance of a show cause notice dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-1). In pursuance thereto he was retired on 7.6.2010. The adverse entries with regard to his integrity were conveyed to him on 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-3), which was after the issuance of the show cause notice to the petitioner. Against adverse entries petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of Police, Haryana on 5.5.2010 (Annexure P-4). This representation of the petitioner was accepted by the Director General of Police, vide order dated 20.6.2011 (Annexure P-5). The adverse remarks recorded in the confidential reports for the period from 12.6.2008 to 2009 were expunged. The only adverse entry with regard to his integrity being doubtful having been expunged, the petitioner fulfilled the required 70% good reports for the last ten years which would enable him to serve beyond the age of 55 years. As a sequel of the order dated 20.6.2011, passed by the Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak passed order dated 20.12.2011, vide which petitioner has been allowed to serve beyond the age of 55 years, as per the Haryana Government instructions. However, it was stated in the order that the petitioner shall be granted only the deemed benefits from 7.6.2010 till the date of his rejoining duty without giving any financial benefits. For this the principle of 'no work no pay' was invoked. Petitioner through the present writ petition is assailing this part of the order, which denies him the financial benefits.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that for no fault of his, petitioner has been penalised by denying him the financial benefits. Once show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for retiring him even prior to conveying the adverse entry to him, resulting indenying him the opportunity to represent against the same, the said order could have not been sustained. On a representation, which was made by the petitioner prior to his retirement, the same was accepted by the Director General of Police, although, after his retirement but that has rendered the earlier order of retiring the petitioner from service illegal. Realising this mistake, self correction was done by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak and in these circumstances denial of the financial benefits to the petitioner for the period he remained out of service for no fault of his despite, he being interested in serving the respondent department, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there were adverse remarks against the integrity of the petitioner and basing thereon, the order of show cause notice, the petitioner was rightly retired at the relevant time on the basis of the records and since the representation of the petitioner has been accepted subsequent to the date of his retirement he is not entitled to the financial benefits, although, notional benefits have already been granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition is made.