SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition challenges the order of compulsory retirement issued against the petitioner who had entered the Punjab Police as a constable. The impugned order was passed on 24.8.1992 in public interest and the challenge is brought through the writ petition detailing three instances, one, the petitioner had suffered forfeiture of one year service in the year 1969 pursuant to departmental action; two a criminal case had been prosecuted against him and though acquitted initially, he was convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC; and three, in the year 1981 he was visited with 'censure' for some indiscretion in service.

(2.) THE counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that even before the order of compulsory retirement there had been an order of dismissal passed on 20.6.1979, pursuant to the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC rendered by the High Court. The conviction was for an imprisonment for a period of six months but the State had issued an order of remission on 13.5.1982 finding that he had a good service history and the offence complained of was a trivial offence. Having remitted the sentence, consequentially, he was directed to be reinstated the same day. He was, however, dismissed subsequently on 12.5.1982 citing the very same order of conviction and on a challenge by the petitioner he was reinstated again on 27.6.1984. The department sought to correct its lapse of dismissal without notice and, therefore, served a notice and again passed an order of dismissal on 24.9.1984. This order of dismissal was a subject of challenge through civil suit by the petitioner which ended in his favour and the civil court decreed the suit on 1.9.1990 finding the order of dismissal to be erroneous. This was subject of challenge to the District Court by the State. The District Judge, while dismissing the appeal, had observed that the authority that passed the order of remission had actually taken note of the fact that the conviction under Section 323 did not involve an offence of moral turpitude and the sentence had been remitted. The reinstatement was a necessary corollary. The order of dismissal was discriminatory and the punishment accorded had failed to consider the service record of the petitioner. The District court recorded the statement of the witness cited by the State before the civil court, where there was admission that the plaintiff's case was being approved for promotion as ASI.

(3.) THE counsel appearing on behalf of the State would support the impugned order by referring to paragraph 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules to source its right to issue such order and the compulsory retirement itself being not a punishment, the petitioner who had completed 55 years of service and who was compulsorily retired in terms of the rules cannot have a justifiable cause to complain.