MOHINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 27.6.2002 (P-3), which was served upon the petitioner on 5.12.2002, vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. A further prayer has been made for allowing the petitioner to serve in the Police Department upto the age of superannuation i.e. upto 31.3.2011. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. As per the averments made in the petition, the date of birth of the petitioner is 23.3.1953. He joined service in the respondent Department as a Constable on 4.12.1972. In October 1988 he passed the Lower School Course. In November 1988 he was placed on C List and promoted as Head Constable. When the petitioner was posted at Government Railway Police Kalka, he was served with a notice dated 15.2.2002 (P-1) to show cause as to why he be not compulsorily retired under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as amended by the Haryana Government (Haryana Second Amendment) Rules, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Rules'). The aforementioned show cause notice was served upon the petitioner after he completed 25 years of qualifying service on 4.12.1997, on the basis of two adverse remarks for the period from 23.7.1993 to 31.3.1994 and 7.12.1994 to 31.3.1995, which were duly conveyed to him. He was awarded punishment of censure in 1994 for not depositing the telephone bill within time given and another punishment of stoppage of four future annual increments with permanent effect was inflicted upon him vide OB No. 172/95. The adverse remarks for the period from 23.7.1993 to 31.3.1994 and 7.12.1994 to 31.3.1995 reads as under:

(2.) On 6.3.2002, the petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice (P-2). After seeing the confidential record, punishments inflicted, considering the reply of the petitioner and after obtaining approval of the State Government vide Memo. No. 5/38/2002-3HGI, dated 11.6.2002, respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 26.6.2002, under the provisions of Rule 9.18(2) of the Rules, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The aforementioned order was served upon the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police Railways, Haryana, Ambala Cantt. vide Endst. No. 44712-20/A-1, dated 3.12.2002, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) The petitioner has sought to challenge the aforementioned order Annexure P-3 by levelling malafides against Shri M.S. Ahlawat, the then Superintendent of Police Railways. He has tried to project that the reason for spoiling his two ACRs by Shri M.S. Ahlawat, the then Superintendent of Police, Railways, was that there were allegations against the said officer that two boys of Agra were kept under illegal confinement by the CIA Staff of GRP Haryana at GRP Kalka with the permission of Shri M.S. Ahlawat when he was posted as Superintendent of Police, Railways, who had inspected the GRP Police Station Kalka on 21st and 22nd of October, 1993. It has further been asserted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Warrant Officer and issued notice to Shri M.S. Ahlawat, the then S.P. Railways and Shri V.N. Rai, the then Deputy Inspector General of Police Railways. It has been alleged that they were not on good terms and both of them wanted the subordinate officers to give statements in their favour as the CBI was enquiring into the matter of illegal custody of those two boys under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner refused to side with either of them which infuriated Shri M.S. Ahlawat and he immediately transferred the petitioner to the 2nd Reserve in GRP Lines on 23.10.1993 and later on in the Standing Guard at Yamuna Bridge. He has also recorded adverse ACR out of vindictiveness and animosity. It has further been alleged that the second report was recorded at the time when the matter was being taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in fact Shri M.S. Ahlawat was convicted for one year imprisonment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the 2nd ACR integrity of the petitioner has been doubted. It is claimed that the same is against law as well as instructions issued by the Haryana Government for recording ACRs. In para 8 of the petition, the petitioner has admitted that against the first adverse remarks (23.7.1993 to 31.3.1994) he did not file any representation. However, with regard to the second adverse remarks (7.12.1994 to 31.3.1995) he has denied that the same were ever conveyed to him. He has also pleaded that the punishing authority has not considered his reply at all and no speaking order has been passed, which is also not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9.18(2) of the Rules as well as the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Amrik Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (3) SCT 617; Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana 1993 (3) SCT 215; State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Misra 1997 (3) RSJ 33; Ram Phal v. State of Haryana 1995 (4) SLR 155; Chiranjit Lal v. State of Haryana C.W.P. No. 18130 of 2001, decided on 22.10.2002); and SI Amrik Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) SLR 769.