RAJ BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Raj Bala, approached this High Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dtd. 13/1/2022 (Annexure P-14) whereby the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service upon attaining the age of 55 years, with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner had joined Haryana Police as a Constable on 4/6/1991 and stood promoted as Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and L/Sub Inspector on 13/7/2004, 12/9/2008 and 12/2/2012 respectively. On 3/10/2018, when the petitioner was entrusted with the investigation in FIR No.384 dtd. 24/12/2014 registered at Police Station, Sector 40, Gurugram, the accused therein made a complaint against the petitioner that she demanded Rs.2.00 lakhs from the accused, out of which Rs.1.00 lakh was already given, however, she continued investigation under the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. Based on the aforesaid complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated by ACP, Pataudi, Gurugam, who submitted his report dtd. 5/9/2019, exonerating the petitioner from all the allegations levelled in the said complaint. However, DCP (Headquarter), Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as the disciplinary authority) did not concur with the enquiry report as submitted by the enquiry officer and rendered his own finding in the form of disagreement note dtd. 30/9/2019 wherein the petitioner had been held guilty of misconduct. A show cause notice was served upon her on the same day to show cause as to why a penalty of stoppage of four future annual increments with permanent effect may not be imposed upon her. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice by refuting the allegations levelled against her and responded that she asked for a loan from the accused for treatment of her brother, which she did not take. The reply filed by the petitioner was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and vide order dtd. 25/10/2019 it was opined that the only misconduct proved against the petitioner is that she asked for loan from an accused person and therefore, keeping in mind her unblemished service record for more than 29 years and the fact that it was maiden omission on her part, she was warned to be careful in future.

(3.) The petitioner's promotion to the post of Inspector was due, however, her name did not find mentioned in list dtd. 1/8/2020 and she was shocked to know that her promotion to the post of Inspector was withheld in view of the order dtd. 25/10/2019 passed by the disciplinary authority and her juniors were given promotion over and above her. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a suit before the trial court and vide order dtd. 7/9/2020 ACJ(SD), Gurugram, directed the competent authority to consider the plaint filed by the petitioner as representation and decide the same within a period of three weeks of passing the order by passing a speaking order. It was further observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh suit, if she still feels aggrieved by the orders of defendants. In compliance of the order passed by the ACJ(SD), Gurugram, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was dismissed by the then Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, arrayed as respondent No.6 vide order dtd. 25/9/2020, by holding that no representation lies against the punishment of warning.