RAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police challenges the order of his premature retirement on the ground that it is wholly without jurisdiction and that it could not have been passed in view of his record of service. A few facts relevant for the decision of this case may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioners was recruited as a constable in the year 1961. It is averred that he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1970 and thereafter as an Assistant Sub-Inspector vide order dated July 19, 1978. The petitioner avers that this order of appointment was passed by the Deputy Inspector- General of Police.

(3.) The petitioner avers that he was communicated adverse remarks for the period from April 1, 1992 to Sept. 30, 1982. A copy of this report has been produced as Annexure P-1 with this petition. In this report, the petitioner's honesty was described as 'doubtful'. Various other adverse remarks were also made. Thereafter, a report for the period from April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983 was recorded and communicated Jo the petitioner vide letter dated June 30, 1983, copy of which has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure P-2. Adverse remarks regarding the petitioner's performance in respect of various matter were made. On receipt of a complaint in the year 1987, the petitioner was placed under suspension on Nov. 20, 1987. The enquiry into the complaint was entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The allegations could not be proved. Accordingly, the complaint was filed. However, in the Confidential Report for the period from Aug. 31, 1987 to March 31, 1988, the petitioner's integrity was described as 'doubtful'. It was observed that he did not show moral courage and readiness to expose the malpractices of subordinates. His reputation for fair dealing with public and accessibility to the public was described as below average. It was also observed that his dealing with public was not straight and fair. It was also recorded that the petitioner was not fit to hold independent charge of a police post. The petitioner submitted a representation against these adverse rem-arks to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. The representation was rejected. A copy of the order conveyed to this petitioner in this behalf has been produced on record as Annexure P-5.