MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A police officer in the rank of Asstt. Sub Inspector has been served with notice of premature retirement on 20.9.2008 on the ground that his services were no longer required in the public interest. The assessment to dispense with the services has been made in the context of the petitioner having reached the age beyond 55 years and in the face of recent acts of serious dereliction of duty coming to the attention of the higher officials.

(2.) THE incident was that on an intervening night of 27/28.6.2006 two trucks loaded with several refill gas cylinders were detained by petitioner and one Ranbir Singh but ultimately let them off without taking any legal action. The goods were meant for disposing them off in the black market. The obvious inference was that the police officer had connived with the truck operators and collected money. The departmental inquiry had been initiated on 29.6.2006 and assigned to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Officer found that the charges were not proved that the Superintendent of Police had a lengthy disagreement note. The Superintendent of Police recorded the fact that one Sh. Narender Singh, the then Superintendent of Police had been examined before the Investigation Officer and he had also submitted his comprehensive report highlighting the misconduct exhibited by the petitioner and another. The Superintendent of Police had good grounds to believe that the other witnesses had been acting in concert to support the petitioner and after issuing a show cause notice on 24.4.2007 for the grounds for not accepting the report and drawing up a disagreement note, given opportunity to the petitioner to show cause by punishment in deduction in rank. However, after hearing their objections, authority had decided to take a lenient view and awarded the punishment of stoppage of two future increments. This order was passed on 28.5.2007. The annual confidential Report for the period between 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 had contained entries as follows:

(3.) IT is a trite proposition of law that compulsory retirement itself is not a punishment. It is a mode of reckoning in the twilight years of one's career whether such a person would be useful or could be weeded out as dead wood in public interest. The Govt. has its own reasons and if it had taken a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner, it could be assailed only if it is arbitrary or if the decision had been taken without following the procedure laid down under the relevant rules. The entries in A.C.R. themselves do not constitute punishment but it is only a mechanism to improve the performance of an employee. The respondents have taken all the relevant facts before deciding to compulsorily retire the petitioner and we find no scope for interference. No valid grounds have been made either to expunge the adverse remarks or to recall the order of compulsory retirement. We decline to interfere in this case and accordingly dismiss the writ petition.