SUJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 02.04.2009 (Annexure P -4) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, whereby he has been compulsorily retired upon attaining the age of 55 years. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Haryana Police on 19.12.1979. He thereafter earned promotions as Head Constable in the year 1998 and as Assistant Sub Inspector in 2004. The date of birth of the petitioner is 23.03.1954 and in the normal course, he was to retire on 31.03.2012 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) IN the year 2007, the petitioner faced a departmental inquiry on the allegation that he had taken an amount of Rs. 3000/ - from Jahid for showing undue favour and for not taking action against him in connection with the theft of a gas cylinder. In the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer returned findings against the petitioner. The Punishing Authority based upon the findings of the Inquiry Officer passed an order dated 03.07.2007 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments upon the petitioner. Such order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Civil Suit bearing No. 53/2008 on 16.07.2008. During the pendency of the suit, the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon issued a notice dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P -1) proposing to retire the petitioner from service upon attaining the age of 55 years by invoking the provisions of Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I and Rule 9.5(c) of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner preferred CWP No. 827 of 2009 raising a challenge to the notice dated 22.12.2008. Such writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P -2) with a direction to the Director General of Police, Haryana to take a decision as regards the retention of the petitioner or otherwise. It has been pleaded that the petitioner received a copy of the order dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, which was in response to a representation filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice issued to him, whereby his claim to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years was rejected by a non -speaking and cryptic order. It has further been pleaded that thereafter the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon has passed the impugned order dated 02.04.2009 (Annexure P -4) retiring the petitioner at the age of 55 years thereby giving the effect to the notice dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P -1).

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the State would refer to the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 to State that the case of the petitioner for extension in service beyond the age of 55 years has been considered in the light of Instructions issued by the State Government dated 14.03.2006 and 17.02.2009 (Annexures R -I & R -II) and in terms thereof, any official, who has been awarded punishment and which adversely reflects on the integrity is not to be allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. Even though, it has been conceded that the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18.07.2007 has been set aside by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon vide judgment dated 27.10.2009, yet this Court has been apprised that the petitioner was also awarded a penalty of censure for indulging in dishonest dealings and exhibiting departmental misconduct during the course of investigation of FIR No. 340 dated 01.09.2005 under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon vide order dated 19.03.2007. That apart, yet another punishment of censure was imposed vide order dated 11.06.2007, when the petitioner was found sleeping in the Police Station instead of performing his duty. Accordingly, it has been contended that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I and Rule 9.18(i)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules. Learned State counsel would argue that the subjected satisfaction of the Competent Authority would not be open for interference by this Court as if it was entertaining an appeal against the order of compulsory retirement.