DAULAT RAM SUB INSPECTOR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 12690 ofl993 as well as Civil Writ Petition No. 14948 of 1993, both having been filed by the same petitioner. Petitioner who was working as a Sub Inspector in the Haryana Police filed the former writ petition for seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and promote him to the rank of Inspector w.e.f. the date his juniors i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5 had been promoted. The latter writ petition is for quashing the order dated 26.11.1993 vide which the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service. Brief facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Haryana Police on February 15, 1962, and was promoted as a Head Constable on April 1, 1967, and was confirmed as such w.e.f. December 11, 1974. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on April 23, 1976 and was confirmed as such on February 1, 1980. He was still further promoted as Sub Inspector on April 25, 1982, and vide order dated March 21, 1989, he was confirmed as such w.e.f. August 1, 1985. It has further been alleged in the said confirmation order that the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 17 whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 figure at Sr. No. 23 and 29 respectively. Further in February, 1990, respondents No. 4 and 5 were promoted as Inspectors. Since the petitioner had met with an accident in July, 1990, as a result of which he received multiple fractures and injuries, he could not make immediate representation against the promotion of respondent No. 4 and 5. He made a representation on February 7, 1993, which was rejected on March 18, 1993. This led the petitioner to file the first writ petition. Thereafter, as observed above, the petitioner was compulsorily retired vide order dated November 26, 1993, which led the petitioner to file the second writ petition.

(3.) SO far as the second writ petition regarding compulsory retirement is concerned, the respondents have also stated that in the annual confidential report for the period July 2,1991, to February 14, 1992, it was conveyed that the petitioner was an average type of Sub Inspector and he had also been awarded some punishment of censure. It was on the basis of overall record that the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired as he had outlived his utility as a police officer.