JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was serving as a Head Constable with the Haryana Police, has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure P-7), passed by the D.G.P., Haryana, whereby he was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. Brief facts are that the petitioner joined Haryana Police as Constable on 14.1.1982. He was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f. 13.2.1992. On 20.4.2009 petitioner was served with a show cause notice proposing his compulsory retirement from service and was granted 15 days time to submit a reply. The petitioner submitted his response dated 29.4.2009. After considering the same the impugned order dated 30.6.2011 at Annexure P-7 has been passed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was awarded Commendation Certificates on a number of times and had discharged his duties diligently and with devotion. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion as A.S.I but such benefit having not been granted, the petitioner had been constrained to file CWP No. 3249 of 2007 in this Court and which is still pending adjudication. Argument raised is that while passing the impugned order the competent authority has not undertaken an exercise of balancing inasmuch as the good service record and the exemplary service rendered by the petitioner, has been completely ignored. It has further been argued that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from a non-application of mind. In such regard counsel would submit that the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 1.4.2007 to 9.7.2007 in which his integrity had been doubted. A representation filed against such adverse remarks had been rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala vide order dated 18.2.2009. The petitioner had instituted a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ambala against the adverse remarks for the period 1.4.2007 to 9.7.2007 as also against the order dated 18.2.2009, whereby his representation had been rejected and such suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 15.12.2011 declaring the adverse remarks as illegal and non-est. Counsel would argue that on account of the decree passed by the Trial Court dated 15.12.2011 the basis for compulsorily retiring the petitioner does not subsist. Counsel apart from having referred to land mark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 2 SCC 299 has also placed reliance upon two judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in cases of Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002 1 SCT 325 and Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 4 SCT 302 to contend that the entire service-record of an employee has to be considered and properly evaluated while passing an order of compulsory retirement and greater importance has to be given to the service record and performance during the later years. By placing reliance on such judicial precedents, counsel would further contend that the power of judicial review of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in a situation which reflects non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority while taking a decision to compulsorily retire an employee. Yet another submission raised by the counsel is that instead of three months notice as was mandated under the statutory rules, only 15 days time was granted to the petitioner at the time of serving of show cause notice and it is contended that the order of compulsory retirement is bad in law on such short ground alone.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel would refer to the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 and would contend that adverse remarks were duly recorded and conveyed to the petitioner for the period April, 1995 to September, 1995, October, 1995 to March, 1996, 1.4.2007 to 9.7.2007 and 24.12.2008 to 31.3.2009. A reference has also been made to a tabulation contained in para 4 of the preliminary objections as regards the conduct and punishments awarded to the petitioner. State counsel would submit that the service record pertaining to 25 years service rendered by the petitioner did not warrant his retention in service and as such the impugned order of compulsory retirement is well founded. State counsel has further referred to Rule 9.18 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to the State of Haryana) and would submit that the statutory rule does not mandate a 3 months advance notice to be served but envisages the grant of an adequate opportunity to the official to make a representation against the proposed action of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that the show cause notice dated 20.4.2009 having been served upon the petitioner and to which a detailed reply dated 29.4.2009 had been submitted the requirement of the rule stood duly complied with.