BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of adverse entry in the ACR for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 and order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure P-15), vide which, the representation of the petitioner was rejected as well as order dated 20.2.2012 (Annexure P-20), vide which, the petitioner has been ordered to be retired after giving three months prior notice. Petitioner-Baljit Singh was initially appointed as Constable on 15.7.1977 and thereafter he was promoted as Head Constable on 6.8.2001 and as ASI on 28.11.2007. In the ACR for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 adverse remarks were recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Jind. The petitioner made representation but the same was rejected on 13.10.2010. Thereafter the second representation was made which was also rejected and vide order dated 20.2.2012 (Annexure P-20), he was ordered to be retired after giving three months prior notice.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the adverse remarks were not only malafide but contrary to fact as the petitioner was rewarded by respondent No.4 in the month of May, 2009 and January, 2010. During this period he was also deputed to Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban for the Intermediate Course and remained there w.e.f. 1.6.2009 to 16.11.2009 i.e. for more than five months. The adverse remarks have been recorded contrary to instructions dated 14.12.1951, 4.10.1956, 15.7.1959 and 12.12.1985. Whole service record of the petitioner has remained meritorious and no complaint whatsoever was ever conveyed to him but only due to adverse entry in the ACR for the aforesaid period, he was ordered to be retired compulsorily.

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was to be considered for allowing him to continue beyond the age of 55 years but he was not found fit as his integrity was recorded doubtful in the ACR for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. The reasons for recording adverse remarks were also conveyed to the petitioner. He was also awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect vide order dated 17.11.2009 but the same was modified to stoppage of one annual increment with temporary effect by the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range-Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.12.2010. It is also the argument of learned State counsel that Regular Departmental Inquiry was also conducted against the petitioner for certain omissions and commissions in the investigation of case, FIR No. 571 dated 6.10.2008 registered under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station City Jind, in which, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him.