THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raj Kumar, A.S.I. respondent in this appeal filed by the State of Punjab as also Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, it appears, is litigating for one cause or the other ever since 1976. He was not allowed to cross efficiency bar with effect from due date i.e. Aug. 1, 1976, thus constraining him to agitate the matter by way of civil suit which was decreed on Oct. 4, 1982. Various appeals preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment and decree aforesaid did not find favour any where and it was ultimately on March 30, 1987 than the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Meanwhile in 1985, he was retired from service vide orders dated April 24, 1985. Once again Raj Kumar successfully challenged the orders aforesaid in Civil Writ Petition 2280 of 1985 which was allowed on Nov. 12, 1986. He was permitted to join his duties on Dec. 8, 1986 but in a period of only seven days, he was once again, relieved. The tenacity of the petitioner to fight against injustice led to the filing of contempt petition in this Court, in consequence whereof he was allowed to rejoin on Feb. 14, 1987. Immediately thereafter i.e March 17, 1987 he worked in the Central Bureau of Investigation which was for a short period of only five days and thereafter from March 23, 1987 to April 10, 1987, he was sent to Police Lines at Ludhiana. After seven days, he was deputed to work in the University Examination Hall upto March 22, 1987 and thereafter again with Central Bureau of Investigation from May 27, 1987 to Feb. 29, 1988. The petitioner was ordered to work with the Excise and Taxation Department on Jan. 28, 1988 which department he joined on Feb. 29, 1988. For the short period he had worked in the manner aforesaid he was conveyed adverse remarks in the confidential reports for the period July 4, 1987 to Feb. 29, 1988 and when the representation filed against the said adverse remarks did not find favour with the authorities, he filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 6197 of 1988 to challenge the adverse remarks contained in his confidential report as also the order rejecting his representation. The matter did not end there and in a period of less than a year when the orders rejecting his representation were passed. He was retired from service prematurely. This order was separately challenged by him in Civil Writ Petition 5616 of 1989. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the petitions by one order which has been challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeals 603 and 604 of 1992 by the appellants noticed above. This order will dispose of both the Letters Patent Appeals.

(2.) The appellants contended that the order of premature retirement was passed after taking into account the entire service record of the respondent and in particular the confidential reports which relate to the period 1.4.1971 to 31.3.1972 as also 1.4.1975 to 31.3.1976. It is also sought to be made out that the order of premature retirement was in fact passed by Shri S.S. Saini, the then Senior Superintendent of Police and not by Shri A.P. Pandey and, therefore, finding of the learned Single Judge that the impugned order which was passed by Shri A.P. Pandey against whom unrebutted mala fides were alleged is factually incorrect. The last contention of the appellants is that senior Superintendent of Police was competent to record the confidential reports of the respondent as he was working with the C.B.I. team camp at Ludhiana from 27.5.1987 to 29.2.1988 and was deputed with the C.B.I. by the order of Senior Superintendent of Police purely on temporary basis for the security purpose of the C.B.I. team and not investigation purposes and that he had drawn his salary from the District Police Ludhiana for the said period. The performance of respondent who was, thus under administrative supervision of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana could be only commented upon by the latter.

(3.) The contention, as noticed above, in our view, has no substance and, thus, deserves to be repelled. In so far as the adverse remarks contained in the confidential reports pertaining to the period 1971-72 and 1975-76 are concerned, the same could not be taken into account as the civil suit instituted by the respondent, reference of which has been given above and in which the reports aforesaid were also challenged as also no promotion of the respondent culminated in favour of respondent upto the Apex Court. Admittedly, the respondent was promoted retrospectively and it was further undertaken by the Government Pleader that respondent will be considered for further promotion in his service career without taking into consideration punishments on the basis of which he was previously ordered to be reverted as also that he would get all future benefits of promotions according to Rules. The matter does not rest there and it will be seen that when respondent was given pre- mature retirement in the year 1985 which he successfully challenged in Civil Writ Petition 2280 of 1985, the appellant again endeavoured to sustain the order on the basis of the service record of the respondent prior to 1978. Obviously, the adverse remarks in the confidential reports, reference of which has been given, were also relied upon. The matter was dealt by a learned Single Judge of this court in the judgment rendered on that behalf on Nov. 12, 1986 and it was held that the respondents i.e. appellants in the present appeal could not in breach of the undertaking given as per judgment Annexure P-15 once again take into account the adverse record of the petitioner prior to the year 1978 to adjudge his suitability or consider his premature retirement from service under the Rules. It is rather unfortunate that having once failed in their endeavour to sustain the earlier order of pre-mature retirement an effort is being persistently made to take into consideration the material which was rejected.