GURDIAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to dispose of these six connected writ petitions (C.Ws. 5062, 5137, 5139, 5143, 5144 and 5182 of 1975) by this common judgment as the questions of law that arise regarding the interpretation, application and validity of Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called the 1975 Rules) are the same in almost all these cases. Except for one case (Civil Writ Petition 5182 of 1975 - -Mohinder Singh Saini v. The State of Punjab and others), all other petitions have been filed by subordinate police officials against the respective notices of retirement served on them under the aforesaid rules. The peculiar points urged before us on behalf of the Sub -Inspectors/Assistant Sub -Inspectors of Police do not arise in Mohinder Singh Saini's case. All the questions raised in that case, however, arise in the case of the police officers. It would in these circumstances suffice to give the detailed facts of only the first case in which all the common questions were argued by Mr. Kuldip Singh, Bar -at -Law (with the consent of the counsel for the Petitioners in all these cases). That is the case of A.S.I. Gurdial Singh, Petitioner in C.W.P. 5139 of 1975.

(2.) GURDIAL Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) who was born on February 27, 1925, was confirmed as Head Constable in the Punjab Police and was promoted as officiating Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police on April 7, 1965, but had not yet -been confirmed in that rank till the impugned notice of retirement was served on him when he was posted at Ferozepore. His case is that he got one adverse report relating to his honesty in 1971 which merely' required watch being kept over him, and that the only other adverse entry made in his character -roll in 1973 related to a criminal case under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate on November 16, 1973, and that no other adverse entry was ever conveyed to him. He has further averred that after the said adverse entry in 1973, he served in the Police Training Centre during 1974, where he earned "excellent. report", and also two commendation certificates. Throughout his service he claims to have obtained 22 commendation certificates and a cash award of Rs. 250.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore, has filed his affidavit, dated September 17, 1975, as return to the rule issued to the Respondents. He has not admitted that the Petitioner earned only two adverse reports. He has given a list of several different periods from April 1, 1965, to January 21, 1974, when warnings are recorded to have been given to the Petitioner as per entries in his confidential reports. He has further deposed that the Petitioner had in fact acknowledged at least four bad reports out of the seven listed in the written statement, and that he had filed a representation against his bad report for the year 1970 -71, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police on January 25, 1975, and a copy of the said order was served on and acknowledged by the Petitioner on January 31, 1975. Acknowledgements of the Petitioners for the remaining three bad reports are stated to be not forthcoming. It has been admitted that the criminal case under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code filed against the Petitioner in 1973 resulted in his acquittal, but it has been denied that the adverse report given to the Petitioner for the year 1973 was based on the criminal case. The grounds on which the order of Petitioner's premature retirement has been impugned have all been denied and will be dealt with at suitable places hereinafter. It has been specifically emphasized that the impugned notice of retirement served on the Petitioner has not been issued to him as a measure of punishment, and that the Petitioner was being retired "in public interest", about which the Senior Superintendent of Police had satisfied himself before passing the impugned order. He has denied that the order of Petitioner's retirement is based on any collateral or extraneous grounds or that the decision in question has been taken in an. arbitrary manner without the application of the mind of the appropriate authority.