AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by order dated 1.2.2006, Annexure P-6 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service under the provisions of Rule 9.18 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as amended by Haryana Government (Haryana Second Amendment) Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules'), he has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was enlisted as a Constable in Haryana Police on 1.1.1973 and was promoted as a Head Constable with effect from 12.10.1982, as an Assistant Sub Inspector with effect from 1.8.1992 and as an Sub-Inspector with effect from 20.12.2000.

(2.) An adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 5.5.2001 to 31.3.2002 was conveyed to the petitioner against which he had filed a representation, which was rejected by Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range respondent No. 3. A mercy petition is alleged to be pending against the said order. The petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 1.2.2006 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that he is entitled to serve up to the age of 58 years under Rule 3.26 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I read with Rule 9.16 of the Rules.

(3.) Mr. Rameshwar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order Annexure P-6 has been passed against the petitioner with a malafide intentions and without considering the commendation certificates, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 which were granted to him during the years 2000-2002. The provisions of Rule 9.18(2) of the Rules have been wrongly applied to the petitioner and the order of compulsory retirement is not in public interest. The petitioner is not proved to be an inefficient, dishonest or corrupt officer. The order of compulsory retirement, Annexure P-6 is arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of service rules and is liable to be quashed.