DHAN SINGH S I Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, is aggrieved by the order dated October 1, 1993 by which he was retired from service w. e. f. October 1, 1993 (AN ). A copy of this order which has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, has been produced Annexure P-7 with the writ petition.

(2.) MR . I. S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners had been promoted and confirmed as a Sub Inspector of Police by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range vide order dated February 25, 1992. He submits that the impugned order has not been passed by the appointing authority. It is consequently without jurisdiction. On the other hand, Mr. Jaswant Singh submits that on April 23, 1993, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak had forwarded the petitioner's case to the Deputy Inspector General of Police with a request that "case regarding extension in service beyond the age of 55 years may kindly be decided after consulting his personal file and decision taken in this regard may kindly he communicated to this office. " In pursuance to this letter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police had vide his letter dated September 30, 1993 informed the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak that "the case of Sub Inspector, Dhan Singh No. RR/72 has been examined on the basis of his confidential record. He is not allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. " On receipt of this communication, the Superintendent of Police had issued the impugned order. On this basis, the learned counsel contends that the decision to retire the petitioner had in fact been taken by the Deputy Inspector General and as such the impugned order is wholly illegal.

(3.) A perusal of this provision clearly shows that the jurisdiction to pass an order of premature retirement vests in the appointing authority. A necessary pre-condition for the exercise of this jurisdiction that is the formation of an opinion that it is in public interest to retire the Government employee. This opinion can be formed only by the appointing authority.