PRABHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the notice of retirement dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) and the order of retirement dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure P-4), vide which the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon has compulsorily retired him at the age of 55 years. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working in the office of the Inspector General of Police at Chaudhary Devi Lal Centre for Police Research and Training, Bhondsi on the post of Deputy Office Superintendent when FIR No. 5 of 2009, under Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC, Police Station Bhondsi was registered against Shree Krishan Clerk, Office of the IRB Commandant at Bhondsi. Investigation of the case was held and an untraced report was submitted by the police which was accepted on 01.08.2011 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon. In the meanwhile despite the petitioner having a satisfactory record was issued a notice for retirement by the Director General of Police, Haryana on 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner was ultimately retired vide order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) The ground which has been taken against the petitioner for retiring him is that the petitioner is also involved in FIR No. 5 of 2009, where one of the accused is Shree Krishan Clerk. Counsel contends that that itself should not be a ground for not granting extension to the petitioner beyond the age of 55 years. He further contends that ASI Jaidev was posted as an Accountant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Palwal when the FIR was registered, who has been granted extension beyond the age of 55 years. Similarly, Shree Krishan Clerk against whom the FIR was, registered stands promoted to the post of an Assistant by the respondents vide order dated 04.10.2011. Thus, singling out the petitioner, where he is not even an accused, is totally unjustified especially when he was 'never' posted in the office where the forgery has taken place.

(3.) Submission has also been made that after the acceptance of the cancellation report by the Court, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the Director General of Police in which initially the stand of the respondents was that SIT has found the petitioner involved and he was evading the arrest, but ultimately untraced report has been submitted by the SIT in the Court which has been' accepted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon vide order dated 06.03.2013. He, therefore, contends that the order of premature retirement of the petitioner, being without any basis, deserves to be set-aside.