KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 2.6.2006 (P-4), whereby the petitioner has been retired compulsorily from service. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) 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 1.12.1952. He has joined the respondent Department on 15.1.1971 and has completed more than 25 years qualifying service. He was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. On 15.11.1999, one Pardeep Kumar filed a Criminal Complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, alleging that the petitioner has taken Rs. 4,300/- forcibly from him. Pardeep Kumar had sought a direction from the Court against the petitioner to return him Rs. 4,300/- plus Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. On 15.11.2001, respondent No. 3 has imposed on the petitioner a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. Challenging the aforementioned orders the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 3535 of 2003 and this Court vide order dated 13.5.2004 (P-1) set aside the order dated 15.11.2001 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is appropriate to mention here that while setting aside the above mentioned orders, the Division Bench of this Court made it clear that the decision of the writ petition was not to preclude the competent authority from passing fresh order after holding an enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules and after complying with the principles of natural justice. On 2.1.2006, respondent No. 2 served a show cause notice (P-2) upon the petitioner for retiring him compulsorily (P-2). The respondents also supplied to the petitioner the gist of his ACRs for the years 1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, which would indicate that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. In various other columns of ACRs, adverse remarks have also been recorded. The gist of the foregoing ACRs along with conveyed remarks is as under:

(3.) The respondents also confronted to the petitioner with various punishments awarded to him in the year 1998-99 along with the prima facie view of the Director General of Police concluding that the petitioner has outlived his utility as police officer and was not fit to be retained in service any further. The aforementioned details of punishments and opinion reads as under: