NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Haryana Police, has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 28.3.2014 (Annexure P-4), vide which notice was issued to him for premature retirement on completion of period of three months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined as Constable on 1.3.1984 and during his service career, he received 16 commendation certificates. He was promoted upto Assistant Sub Inspector. In the entire service career, he was not inflicted any punishment except stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. As per instructions, an employee is entitled to extension in service if his 70% or above ACRs in the last 10 years are good and the integrity is not doubtful. In the case in hand, on a complaint made by Rajbir against the petitioner and Jitender Singh SHO regarding illegal gratification of 3,000.00, enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found innocent. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer, who inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. In appeal, the order of punishment was upheld. Revision against the same is pending. The petitioner was surprised to receive the notice for premature retirement on attaining the age of 55 years without even affording opportunity of hearing to him. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon judgments of this court in CWP No. 5398 of 2011-Khurshid Ahmed, ASI Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 12.4.2013 and CWP No. 1118 of 2001-Sat Narain Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.2.2009.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that case of the petitioner was considered for extension in service beyond the age of 55 years in the light of instructions dated 14.3.2006. In terms thereof, a government employee is allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years in case he has 70% or above good reports and no integrity doubtful in the last 10 years. In the case in hand, when the petitioner was posted at Police Station, Hassanpur, he was assigned investigation in FIR No. 48 dated 29.5.2007. A complaint was made that he received illegal gratification of 3,000.00 during investigation of the aforesaid FIR from Chet Ram son of Rajbir. During preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty. A regular enquiry was initiated. However, during regular enquiry, Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against him were not proved. The disciplinary authority dis-agreeing, with the report of the Enquiry Officer, served notice on the petitioner proposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. However, after hearing the petitioner, punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed vide order dated 2.8.2008. In appeal, the order was upheld by Inspector General of Police, Faridabad Range, Faridabad. Once after proper enquiry punishment was inflicted on the petitioner on the allegation of receipt of illegal gratification, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in not granting extension to the petitioner beyond 55 years as he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the instructions dated 14.3.2006.