CHANDER PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 13.6.2006 ( annexure P.4) is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the impugned order, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service after issuing him a show cause notice on 14.3.2006 under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to and amended by Haryana). The petitioner who was working as Sub Inspector has been retired after due consideration of his whole service record. A bird's eye view of his service record, as mentioned in the impugned order, reads as under:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel at some length who has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Daya Nand v. State of Haryana 1994(3) PLR 652 and argued that the case of the petitioner for promotion has been recommended on the post of Inspector after his promotion as Sub Inspector on 13.10.1999. The recommendation has been made on 14.10.2005. According to the learned counsel the recommendation itself is sufficient to wash any adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that service record of the petitioner for the last ten years contains only Good/ Very Good entries and therefore by adopting any criterion, he cannot be considered as a dead wood.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that the whole service record of the petitioner has been kept in view in order to arrive at the satisfaction as to whether the petitioner is worthy of retention in service as he has become dead wood and an inefficient officer. It is true that the petitioner was promoted as Sub Inspector 13.10.1999. However, entries even after 1999, from paras 3 to 12, would show that the petitioner is not worthy of retention in service. He has been repeatedly awarded punishment of Censure. He has also been awarded punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 4.11.2003 and with temporary effect vide order dated 21.11.2003. Again a punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was awarded on 26.4.2004. It is well settled proposition of law that in order to chop off a dead wood, the appointing authority can consider the whole service record of an officer and if it comes to the objective satisfaction that such an employee has become dead wood then there is no bar on the authority to pass such an order. We find that the conclusion arrived at by the Review committee is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. In that regard, reliance could be placed on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Dass v. Chief District Medical Officer (1992)2 SCC 299. In paragraph 34 of the afore-mentioned judgement, the following principles have been laid down: