TARA CHAND Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of his compulsory retirement from service. A few admitted facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE Petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on November 25, 1962. After having passed the Lower School course, the Petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on August 10, 1974. He was confirmed as a Constable with effect from November 16, 1977 and as Head Constable with effect from December 4, 1980. He was further allowed to cross the efficiency bar as Head Constable with effect from April 1, 1985. Thereafter, - -vide letter dated January 8, 1988, the Petitioner was served with a notice to show cause as to why he may not be compulsorily retired from service in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume I. In this notice, details regarding the 11 orders of punishment and 10 adverse entries existing on the Petitioner's record of service were furnished. On this resume of the record, it was sought to be concluded that the Petitioner "has outlived his utility as a Police Officer and is not fit to be retained in service any further...." The Petitioner submitted his reply, - -vide letter dated February 12, 1988. On December 3, 1988, in pursuance to the directions given by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, to the Station House Officer, the Petitioner was relieved of his duties. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondent, the Petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K.S. Keer learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Jaswant Singh for the Respondent. I have also perused the original record which has been produced by Mr. Jaswant Singh.