SHISH PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dtd. 14/2/2024 (Annexure P-11) whereby Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Home Department has rejected his claim for reinstatement and affirmed his compulsory retirement order dtd. 14/12/2021.

(2.) The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable in 1989. He was posted in Village Singhwal to protect Warrant Officer and his associate namely Ved Parkash. The Warrant Officer was appointed to search Sonia who was allegedly detained by villagers. The villagers killed Ved Parkash. The departmental enquiry was conducted wherein petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. It was found that he had failed to discharge his duty. The Superintendent of Police, Jind vide order dtd. 30/6/2010 awarded him punishment of forfeiture of three increments for dereliction of duty. With respect to aforesaid incident, FIR No. 180 dtd. 23/7/2009, under Ss. 332, 353, 186, 325, 302, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC was registered at Police Station, Sadar Narwana. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of petitioner under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. He appeared as witness in the trial arising out of aforesaid FIR. He refused to identify culprits at the time of prosecution evidence. He was declared hostile. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was awarded punishment of warning vide order dtd. 30/5/2011. Superintendent of Police, Jind vide order dtd. 5/7/2012 awarded him punishment of warning for indulging in extorting illegal gratification. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police, recorded adverse remarks in his ACR for the period from April' 2009 to November' 2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture of three increments with respect to incident which occurred in Village Singhwal. In the said village, at the time of alleged incident, several police officials were posted. Their statements under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. It was not only petitioner who was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of three future increments but also other officials who were part of team which was deputed in Village Singhwal. None of them was compulsorily retired rather they have been further promoted. The petitioner was subjected to punishment of warning vide order dtd. 5/7/2012 and said order stands set aside by this Court vide order dtd. 18/8/2022. There was adverse entry qua integrity in his ACR for the period from 1/4/2012 to 18/8/2012. The competent authority has already expunged adverse remarks recorded in said ACR. ACR of April' 2009 to November' 2009 relates to period prior to 10 years from the date of passing order, thus, it could not be relied upon. The respondent can examine entire service record, however, as per Government instructions ACRs of last 10 years are considered.