JEET RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 28.7.2006 (Annexure P.1) whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired after he has rendered more than twenty five years of service. The order has been passed by the Inspector General of Police under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana) after obtaining sanction from the Government. The petitioner has been working on the post of Head Constable (EHC) and his service record shows the following adverse entries:

(2.) In respect of item No. 6, extracted above, learned Counsel for the petitioner has candidly conceded that the appeal filed by the respondent- State under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been accepted and the decree of the Civil Court has been set aside. In other words, the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed upholding the punishment of stoppage of two increments on account of the charges of taking illegal gratification which was imposed on the petitioner on 9.9.1998. The service record of the petitioner, as reproduced above, would show that he has earned adverse entries for mis-behaving with senior officers and disobeying their orders. He has also earned the punishment on account of consuming liquor on duty and molesting lady constable in EHC Store and taking illegal gratification.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the view that such officials are within the four corners of Rule 9.18 (2) of the Rules. The aforementioned issue has been considered by us in detail in case Babu Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 11670 of 2006 decided on 8.8.2006. In that order, we had made detailed reference to the rules applicable to officials like the petitioner and also considered the parameters of public interest as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada . We have also discussed the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik and Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam .