OMPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is serving as a Head Constable in the Haryana Police has questioned the validity of a notice dated 9.11.2012, Annexure P6, served upon him as regards his compulsory retirement upon attaining the age of 55 years as also the order dated 12.11.2012, Annexure P7, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar whereby the petitioner would stand compulsorily retired w.e.f. 31.1.2013. Still further, challenge has also been raised to memo dated 15.10.2012 whereby his representation against the adverse remarks conveyed to him for the period 26.12.2008 to 31.3.2009 and 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 has been rejected. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable on 4.10.1979 and having passed the lower school course was promoted as Head Constable on 17.1.1991. The petitioner was confirmed as Head Constable in the year 1997 and it has been pleaded that he had even qualified the intermediate course which would render him eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. He was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 14.4.2000 to 31.3.2001. The petitioner is stated to have filed a civil suit challenging such adverse remarks but such suit was dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal is stated to be pending adjudication before the first Appellate Court. Thereafter, two adverse reports were conveyed to the petitioner for the period 26.12.2008 to 31.3.2009 and 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned notice at Annexure P6 as regards compulsory retirement as also the order at Annexure P7 ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.1.2013 suffer from the vice of non -application of mind. Learned counsel would argue that a false case had been registered against the petitioner under Sections 323, 324 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 13 and 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Bahadurgarh on 19.3.2009. However, in terms of decision dated 28.9.2011 passed by the Sub Judge, Jhajjar, Annexure P2, the petitioner stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him. It has been argued that the petitioner immediately thereafter had submitted a detailed representation seeking expunging of the adverse remarks pertaining to the period 26.12.2008 to 31.3.2009 and 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010, but the same had been rejected in the light of a cryptic non -speaking order dated 15.10.2012, Annexure P4. It has also been contended that on the whole, the petitioner possesses a good service record and the action of the respondent -authorities in taking a decision to compulsorily retire him is without any basis and material on record.

(3.) THE nature of an order of compulsory retirement, its effect as also the scope of judicial scrutiny in such matters has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. In the case of Baikunatha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another,, 1992 (2) SCT 92, their Lordships had held as follows: -