INSPECTOR HARVAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inspector Harvail Singh of Punjab Police has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for seeking a writ in the nature of ceritorari for quashing the order dated December 20, 1991 (Annexure P-1) whereby he was ordered to be retired from service compulsorily in public interest on completion of 25 years of qualifying service and after attaining the age of 50 years. The aforesaid order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The Petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to treat him to be on duty and entitled for all consequential benefits including promotion, etc.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the Petitioner joined Punjab Police as a Constable on 5.10.1960 and was promoted as a Head Constable in the year 1963; he was further promoted as an Inspector on January 15, 1975; the Petitioner is an outstanding sportsman of international repute and had won 225 commendation certificates with cash awards out of which 31 are Class I commendation awards; he got 200 medals out of which 120 are gold and 80 are silver; he was awarded Maharaja Ranjit Singh Award by the Punjab Government and has also been granted an award of Rs. 200/- per month in lieu of his international achievements in the field of athletics; he was awarded Home Minister's medal being the best athlete in police; the Petitioner stood first in 110 metres hurdles race in the world and brought laurels to the police department as also to the nation; the Petitioner passed the lower school training course in the year 1964, inter-class training course in the year 1967 and upper-class training course in the year 1968-69 and thus qualified for promotion to the ranks of a Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector. The Petitioner, despite his excellent service record, was not promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police due to extraneous considerations and persons junior to him were promoted in the year 1982; the Petitioner was awarded adverse annual confidential reports for the year 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, against which he made representations but the same were rejected in an illegal manner by passing non-speaking orders; the Petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 430 on 1.8.1985 seeking his promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and his suit was decreed by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated September 29, 1989 (Annexure P-2); the Petitioner avers that there has been no complaint against his integrity for the periods from 1.4.1974 to 17.1.1975, 24.9.1976 to 31.3.1977, 29.7.1977 to 27.3.1978 and 1.4.1978 to 1.2.1979 and he was awarded B reports for the afore-mentioned period; his ACRs for the year 1979-80 to 1982-83 were good; his reports for the year 1984-85 were adverse as the remarks were recorded on the basis of FIR No. 188 dated 15.11.1984, PS Kotwali, Nabha under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; the Petitioner was acquitted of this case by the trial Court on 19.9.1989, therefore, the adverse remarks in the afore- mentioned ACR are of no consequence. In his confidential report for the year 1985-86, adverse remarks were recorded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar on the basis of the departmental inquiry regarding absence from duty initiated against the Petitioner since the Petitioner remained absent on account of the death of his uncle and maternal uncle and due to his own illness. He was exonerated in the afore-mentioned inquiry, therefore, the adverse remarks in the said ACR should also be taken as expunged; his reports for the year 1986-87 and 1987-88 are good whereas adverse remarks were recorded in his report for the year 1988-89 on the basis of a magisterial inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana under Rule 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules but since the Petitioner earned exoneration in the said inquiry, the adverse remarks, therefore, could not be taken into consideration and were liable to be treated as expunged; his report for the year 1989-90 and 1990-91 are good whereas no report for the year 1991-92 was communicated to him. The Petitioner was conveyed an adverse report for the year 1988-89 against which he had represented and his representation was pending consideration at the relevant time. The Petitioner, therefore, asserts that on the basis of summary of his service record mentioned above, he was neither a dead wood nor a corrupt official liable to be weeded out and that the impugned order dated 20.12.1991 cannot, therefore, be termed in public interest. According to the Petitioner, the order of premature retirement has been passed for extraneous considerations only to deprive him of the due promotion which the Respondent authorities were duty bound to grant in terms of the judgment dated September 29, 1989 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Court and that in the absence of any adverse material against him on record, the impugned action amounts to colourable exercise of power as well as punitive in nature.

(3.) Written statement has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. While the promotion of the Petitioner upto the rank of Inspector or his achievements in the fields of sports are not disputed, it has been asserted that so long as the Petitioner remained in the sports wing, his service record was satisfactory due to which he was also promoted upto the rank of Inspector. However, as soon as the Petitioner was posted to the district police, his performance started deteriorating inviting different kinds of adverse remarks and different punishments were inflicted upon him, a reference to which has been given in paragraph 3 of the reply and relevant portion whereof is reproduced below :