STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009 passed by Shri Parminder Pal Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2006 passed by Shri S.S. Panesar, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala was dismissed. Hari Singh plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to the effect that order of premature retirement and annual confidential report against which appeal was rejected by Director General of Police, is illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional, mala-fide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and against the service rules and regulations governing the services of the plaintiff and he would be continued in the service if the aforesaid order has never been passed. It has been averred by the plaintiff that he joined as constable on 1.4.1967 having been appointed by District Superintendent of Police, Ropar. He was promoted as Head Constable by the District Superintendent of Police, Ropar. He was further promoted as ASI in the year 1984 by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Inspector by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala w.e.f. 2.10.1990. He was promoted as Inspector by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh on 1.2.1995 w.e.f. 3.6.1994. An adverse report was made by Sh. R.P. Mittal, Superintendent of Police, 4 IRB, Jalandhar for the period w.e.f. 1.4.1995 to 31.7.1995. The plaintiff filed representation against the adverse remarks on 4.3.1996 as per grounds mentioned in the representation. Vide office order No. 7913-15/A-I, dated 30.3.1998, the plaintiff was prematurely retired by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. The order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range Patiala and the adverse remarks given by Sh. R.P. Mittal, SP and order rejecting appeal are illegal ultra vires, unconstitutional, mala fide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and against service rules and regulations governing the services of the plaintiff on the grounds mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. Despite notice under Section 80 CPC, the defendants did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(2.) Upon notice defendant Nos. 1 to 4 appeared and contested the suit by filing a collective written statement taking a preliminary objections therein that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiff has prematurely been retired in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Pre-mature Retirement) Rules, 1975.

(3.) On merits, it is alleged that plaintiff was promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 1.2.1995. The plaintiff was adversely commented upon in his ACR for the period w.e.f. 1.4.1995 to 31.7.1995. Plaintiff submitted representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab Chandigarh against the adverse remarks which is a matter of record and the same was considered and rejected. The punishment of censure dated 9.8.1995 was expunged by the Director General of Police, Punjab as it was issued after 31.7.1995 i.e. the period of report in addition to this, the plaintiff was awarded four Censures in the year 1985, 1987 and twice in the year 1995. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the adverse report and order regarding appeal are legal and in accordance with law. Denying other averments, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.