KHURSHID AHMED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was serving as a Sub Inspector of Police in the Police Department, State of Haryana has impugned in the instant writ petition a notice dated 7.2.2011 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Palwal whereby in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 3.26 (d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, Part 1 and Rule 9.18 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana, a decision has been taken to compulsorily retire him w.e.f. 7.5.2011 upon attaining the age of 55 years in public interest.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on 13.3.1979. He was promoted as Head CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5398 of 2011 2 Constable on 6.4.1990 and upon having passed Intermediate School Course, he was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 23.12.2002. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has even qualified the Upper School Course in the year 2009. The categoric averments made in the petition are to the effect that no adverse ACR has ever been conveyed to him in his 32 years service and it is only minor penalties in the nature of censure in the year 2008 and stoppage of two increments with temporary effect, vide order dated 21.2.2010, have been inflicted upon him.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana would refer to the common written statement filed on behalf of all the respondents and would seek to justify the action in compulsorily retiring the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has had a chequered service record. Towards such assertion, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner had been awarded the punishment of censure vide order dated 11.4.2000. The petitioner had been awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with temporary effect vide order dated 5.1.2008. He was again awarded the punishment of censure on 22.1.2008 and in the recent past, in terms of order dated 30.4.2011, punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with temporary effect had also been awarded. Learned State counsel has argued that the aforementioned blemishes collectively have formed the basis for taking the decision not to retain the petitioner in service beyond the age of 55 years. It has also been argued on behalf of the State that such decision has been taken in public interest and not by way of punishment and, as such, the issue broadly would not fall within the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.