RAJPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had been appointed as a Constable in Sports Category in Punjab Police on 13/12/1991 and was promoted as Ad-hoc rank ASI on 26/11/2011. However, vide impugned order dtd. 21/8/2023 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner as well as 13 other police officials have been ordered to be retired pre-maturely by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of said dtd. 21/8/2023 (Annexure P-4) qua the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had always been performing his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and had also been honoured with a First Grade Appreciation Letter by the Deputy Commander of Police, Amritsar City on 26/2/2013 (Annexure P-2). It has further been submitted that recently when the petitioner was required to go abroad to meet his son, he was granted permission by the respondent-department by clearly mentioning that no departmental enquiry or criminal case is pending against him, as is stated in order dtd. 15/8/2023 (Annexure P-3). The learned counsel submitted that under these circumstances, there was no occasion to have forcibly retired the petitioner who had put in more than 31 years of service and that too without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that dismissal of petitioner at this stage would surely cause a stigma on him and that he could be retained in service while assigning any lesser important assignment, in case for any reason the respondents nursed some doubts about efficiency of petitioner.

(3.) The learned State counsel, upon whom an advance copy of petition had already been served, submitted that as per provisions of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (as amended in 2014), the case of each of the officers/officials is to be reviewed upon completion of qualifying service of 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 years for the purpose of considering as to whether they should be retained further in service or not and that since the petitioner was not found fit to be retained further in service, therefore, he has been ordered to be retired. The learned State counsel, pursuant to a direction issued on the last date of hearing, has furnished a copy of letter dtd. 11/9/2023, accompanied by some documents indicating the record of the petitioner, addressed by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar to the Advocate General, Punjab which is taken on record.