NARPAT SINGH 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:

(2.) The petitioner at the time of passing impugned order of retirement was holding post of Sub-Inspector. An FIR No.302 dtd. 3/7/2019 under Ss. 148, 149, 324, 325, 326, 365, 307 & 506 of IPC and Ss. 25, 54 & 59 of Arms Act, 1959 was registered at Police Station Dabua, District Faridabad against few persons including Rahisudeen. The higher authorities came to know that petitioner has demanded bribe from Rahisudeen. He was placed under suspension and regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The enquiry officer found him guilty in his report dtd. 9/12/2021. He was issued show cause notice proposing stoppage of one future annual increment with permanent effect. He was awarded proposed punishment vide order dtd. 25/1/2022. He preferred appeal before Commissioner of Police, Faridabad. The Appellate Authority converted the punishment of forfeiture of annual increment with permanent effect into temporary effect. He further preferred revision before Director General of Police (DGP) who dismissed his revision vide order dtd. 22/12/2022. As per Instructions dtd. 22/10/2021, the competent authority decided to re-write his ACR for the year 2021-22. The reporting authority vide order dtd. 7/8/2023 recorded his honesty doubtful and further declared him unreliable and a below average officer. He preferred representation to Commissioner against adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2021-22. The respondent vide impugned order decided to retire him at the age of 55 years. The said order has been passed in exercise of power conferred under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short 'PPR ').

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect which was reduced to temporary effect by Appellate Authority. It is a case of no evidence. The petitioner was not even Investigating Officer in the alleged case. He never demanded bribe from the complainant. The Inquiry Officer wrongly held the petitioner guilty and thereafter Disciplinary Authority awarded him punishment. The audio recording was wrongly relied upon. Previously the authorities formed an opinion that audio recording cannot be relied upon, however, Inquiry Officer relied upon audio recording and held him guilty. The foundation of adverse remarks in ACR was order of punishment. He was made to retire at the age of 55 years on the basis of adverse remarks in the ACR. In this way, on account of alleged offence of demanding bribe, the petitioner was subjected to punishment of forfeiture of one increment, adverse remarks in ACR and order of retirement at the age of 55 years. The impugned order of retirement, in view of Instructions dtd. 14/3/2006 issued by DGP could be passed by DGP and it was wrongly passed by DCP, Faridabad.