HARINDER SINGH ASI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, impugns the order dated October 4, 1994 by which he has been retired from service under Rule. 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume I. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner was recruited as a Constable on August 27, 1963. He was promoted as a Head Constable in the year 1974. On August 18, 1978, the petitioner was confirmed as a Head Constable. He was promoted as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on July 20, 1982. He was confirmed as such with effect from October 31, 1986. The petitioner states that during his entire career, only one departmental enquiry was initiated against him in the year 1984 which was filed vide order dated November 10, 1994. While he was expecting his promotion, he was "shocked and surprised to receive a notice on 3.6.1993 which was alleged to have been issued by the Director General of Police on May 5, 1993". By this notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service in public interest under the provisions of Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Along with this notice, the material on the basis of which the petitioner was sought to be compulsorily retired was also conveyed to him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on June 3, 1993. Thereafter, he received the order dated October 4, 1994, a copy of which is at Annexure P -3 with the writ petition. The petitioner alleges that the impugned order of retirement is wholly without jurisdiction as it has not been passed by the competent authority viz. the Director General of Police. He further submits that the action is even otherwise unfair and arbitrary. The petitioner also avers that he had been awarded 40 Commendation Certificates during his career.

(3.) MR . I.S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the reports conveyed to the petitioner cannot be categorised as 'C reports in view of the provisions of Rule 13.17. He has further contended that the action of the respondents does not conform to the provisions of Rule 9.18 in as much as the approval of the State Government was not obtained and the order was not passed by the competent authority viz. the Director General of Police. The claim has been controverted by Ms. Ritu Bahri, appearing for the respondents. She has also produced before us the file to show that the orders had been passed by the Director General of Police and the decision was merely conveyed by the Superintendent of Police.