JASPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.1993 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala for premature retirement of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner joined service on 6.3.1959 as Constable in the erstwhile State of Punjab. He was promoted as Head Constable on 12.6.1964. On the formation of the State of Haryana, he opted for the service of that State and thus he became an employee of the State of Haryana with effect from 1.11.1966. He was promoted as Assistant Inspector on 28.10.1977 and then as Sub Inspector on 24.2.1983. He was confirmed on the post of A.S.I. on 5.9.1984. On 20.5.1983 the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub Inspector in view of judgment of this Court which was given in a writ petition filed by the direct recruit Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police. The petitioner was once again promoted as Sub Inspector of Police vide order dated 14.12.1989 (Annexure P-5). After about 10 months a fresh order of his reversion was passed on 16.10.1990. Representation submitted by the petitioner against his reversion came to be rejected by the Government vide letter dated 24.6.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 11894 of 1993 and while admitting the writ petition the Court passed an order on 16.9.1993 staying the reversion of the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded that he has got good service record. He has earned several commendation certificates and cash awards and that some adverse reports have been made by the concerned authorities due to personal prejudices and ill-will. Petitioner's contention is that on the basis of his good record of service the competent authority could not have formed an opinion for his premature retirement. Petitioner has characterised the action of the respondents as arbitrary, capricious and whimsical.

(3.) Respondents have pleaded that the competent authority has retired the petitioner on the basis of an overall evaluation of the service record of the petitioner which is tainted with several adverse reports, including some remarks doubting his integrity. Respondents have asserted that for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the petitioner earned adverse reports and even though he was given promotion as Sub Inspector, the adverse entries did not get washed off. Respondents have further pleaded that the petitioner was not found fit to be continued in service beyond the age of 55 years and, therefore, the impugned order has been passed.