RAJ SINGH DAHIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years in public interest while serving in the police department as a Sub-Inspector by resort to R. 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-1, Part-1 read with R. 9.18(1)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana. The three month notice of compulsory retirement was issued on 22.4.2010. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9934 of 2010 before this Court challenging the impugned order of compulsory retirement which was dismissed on 28.9.2011 after stay order was granted earlier on 26.5.2010. The intra court appeal (LPA 1881 of 2010) against the order of the learned single judge failed on 23.1.2012 when the appeal was dismissed. The order has attained finality. On culmination of litigation the petitioner was retired on 15.2.2012. The petitioner was awarded punishment of censure vide order dated 30.1.2003 on the allegations of extorting money from truck drivers including a driver of Canter No RJ-14-27G-6160 carrying goats by way laying him on NH 8 while the petitioner etc. were deployed on duty on the night intervening 9/10.8.2002. The Canter was stopped for police extortion at 5 different points while passing through district Rewari and at 8 places in Gurgaon with driver and owner of livestock in the Canter. Another startling revelation from the report of Sh. Murari Lal, HPS, DSP, Haryana Highway Patrol & Road Safety, Karnal who was deputed to verify the information is that in the area of two police stations viz. Dharuhera and Manesar, the SHOs had sent their own official vehicles with police personnel for extorting money from truck drivers passing by. This report is subject matter of communication (R-1) dated 17.8.2002 from Superintendent of Police, Haryana Highway Patrol & Road Safety, Karnal to the Director General of Police, Haryana, Panchkula shows up another horrendous feature, that is, unabated highway robberies at the hands of men in uniform or in disguise go on every night but the intensity goes up on Tuesdays and Fridays because a larger number of vehicles ferrying animals and livestock proceed to Delhi on these nights. The SP has suggested that:

(2.) The petitioner complains that censure was awarded without following procedure laid down in R. 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to Haryana, inasmuch as no regular enquiry was held before inflicting minor punishment. The order is thus illegal because it was not preceded by charge sheet or disciplinary proceedings where he would have had an opportunity to prove his innocence. Still further that petitioner did not have a statutory right of appeal under R. 16.29 against an order of censure since appeals are competent only against major punishments. He has therefore gone unheard.

(3.) The facts as they emerge from the written statement filed by the respondent State are that after the above incident of extortion a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Gurgaon which prima facie found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled and which found actually on a surprise checking carried out where the petitioner was caught red handed. The competent authority was of opinion that instead of holding regular enquiry for major misconduct a show cause notice of censure be issued to the petitioner by resort to provisions of R. 16.9 of the PPR, 1934. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 17.9.2002. The petitioner filed a reply thereto which was considered and not found satisfactory. That is how the punishment order was passed in 2003 which has been challenged through the present petition filed in 2011 after a delay of 8 years. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the return that the petitioner had been inflicted punishments of censure three times and had been awarded major punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect in a departmental enquiry conducted against him on the allegations that he did not arrest an accused Vinod Kumar in case FIR No. 123/2009 registered in Police Station sector-10, Gurgaon under Ss. 302, 201, 34 IPC.