SARJIT 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 order dtd. 9/11/2020 whereby Inspector General of Police (in short 'IGP'), South Range, Rewari has quashed order dtd. 26/3/2018 vide which Superintendent of Police (in short 'SP') Nuh reinstated him.

(2.) The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 5/6/1992. He was promoted as Head Constable in 2004 and Assistant Sub Inspector (in short 'ASI') in 2011. He cleared Upper School Course and became eligible for the post of Sub Inspector. He served notice dtd. 8/9/2017 upon SP, Nuh expressing his willingness to retire on expiry of three months' period. The jurisdictional SP accepted his application vide order dtd. 27/9/2017. The petitioner filed application dtd. 14/3/2018 seeking permission to withdraw his notice seeking voluntary retirement. The said application was considered by SP, Nuh and allowed vide order dtd. 26/3/2018. He was ordered to be taken back in service. The said order came to be reviewed and set aside vide order dtd. 15/6/2018 passed by IGP, Rewari. The petitioner preferred CWP-17013-2018 assailing order dtd. 15/6/2018. This Court vide order dtd. 13/7/2018 set aside order dtd. 15/6/2018 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. IGP was granted liberty to pass fresh order after issuing notice to petitioner and granting opportunity of hearing. Additional Director General of Police (in short 'ADGP') Rewari issued him show cause notice dtd. 28/9/2018 calling upon to show cause notice as to why order dtd. 26/3/2018 passed by SP Nuh should not be declared null and void. The petitioner filed reply to show cause notice. The matter again came to be adjudicated by IGP, Rewari who vide impugned order dtd. 9/11/2020 recalled order dtd. 26/3/2018 passed by SP, Nuh. The order was passed on the ground that as per Rule 149 of Haryana Civil Services Rule, 2016 (in short 'Service Rules') there is no provision for taking back any employee in service after lapse of intended date of retirement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that IGP, Rewari had no power to recall order of SP, Nuh. Authority prescribed under Rule 149 of Service Rules is Superintendent of Police. The petitioner was holding rank of ASI, thus, his appointing authority was SP. As per Rule 149 of Service Rules, the appointing authority has power to accept notice for voluntary retirement and recall order accepting resignation. The petitioner's notice seeking voluntary retirement was accepted by SP, thus, he was competent to accept letter seeking recalling of notice seeking voluntary retirement. The said authority was competent to recall notice of voluntary retirement even after its acceptance.