STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. BHOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2001 passed by learned Single Judge, quashing order dated 27.11.1985 compulsorily retiring the petitioner-respondent from the post of Sub Inspector at the age of 55 years.

(2.) Facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the appeal are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on 29.11.1952. He was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 16.11.1970 and then promoted as Sub Inspector with effect from 19.6.1984. He was awarded entries doubting his integrity in the year 1972-73 and 1973-74. Accordingly, the appellant-State of Haryana had retired him compulsorily on attaining the age of 55 years on 27.11.1985. The learned Single Judge accepted the argument of the petitioner- respondent that the adverse remarks including the remarks regarding his integrity before his promotion as Sub Inspector could not be taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge has also found merit in the contention that the remarks with regard doubtful integrity earned for the year 1972-73 and 1973-74 were completely watered down once the petitioner was allowed to continue in service after rendering 25 years of qualifying service when he could be pre-maturely retired in the year 1977. He was further promoted as Sub Inspector in the year 1984. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the sting of the adverse remarks doubting his integrity has completely wiped out by virtue of promotion given to the petitioner on 19.6.1984 as Sub Inspector and his continuation on completion of 25 years of service in the year 1977.

(3.) The short issue which has been raised by the learned State counsel in the instant appeal is 'whether the entries concerning doubtful integrity would loose its significance after allowing the Officer to continue when he has completed 25 years of service especially after he has been given further promotion to the higher post'. The answer to the aforementioned question is available in the ratio of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Baikuntha Nath and Anr v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr, 1992 2 SCC 299. The Supreme Court after considering a catena of judgments has laid down the following preposition :-