MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Shri Mukhtiar Singh, retired Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Haryana, challenging the order dated Feb. 23, 1987 whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition which are not in dispute may first be noticed. Petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Police force on 22.4.1958. He was thereafter promoted as a Head Constable and confirmed as such on Feb. 20, 1975. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on March 12, 1979 and thereafter confirmed on this post on Jan. 31, 1983. He was, however, not allowed to cross the efficiency bar three times, firstly w.e.f. April 1, 1983 then w.e.f. April 1, 1984 and lastly on April 1, 1985. In the year 1984, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Haryana requiring him to show-cause as to why he be not compulsorily retired from service. Alongwith the show-cause notice he was also sent a resume of the entries recorded in his character roll and also the confidential reports recorded in his personal file. A detailed reply to the show-cause notice was sent by the petitioner which was not considered satisfactory by the competent authority and, thus, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed on Feb. 23, 1987. His date of birth is 15.4.1938 and in the normal course he would have superannuated at the age of 58 years on April 15, 1996. The service career of the petitioner has, thus, been cut-short by a period of more than 9 years. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) On notice issued to the respondents, they have put in appearance through Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and have also filed a detailed written statement. The order of compulsory retirement is sought to be justified on the basis of the past service record of the petitioner. It is averred that the service record of the petitioner has been rather poor and his honesty had been doubted quite often by the reporting Officers and that the petitioner was invariably described as a very mediocre official.