KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Karnail Singh Sub Inspector of Police, Karnal, challenges order Annexure P.4 passed by Superintendent of Police, Karnal, compulsorily rehiring him with effect from May 16,1984 on payment of three months pay in lieu of notice.

(2.) KARNAIL Singh joined police in Punjab force on October, 1, 1947 as constable. He was promoted as Head Constable with effect from February 1, 1958. In 1966 he was allocated to the State of Haryana, With effect from April 15,1974 he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. He was brought on list 'E' and promoted as Sub Inspector on April 1, 1977. With effect from February 1, 1980 he was confirmed as Assistant Sub Inspector, -vide order dated February 28, 1983 Annexure P.l passed by the Deputy inspector General of Police. The Petitioner was expecting his further promotion as Inspector as there were only two Other seniors to him. His case for, retention beyond 9 years of service was recommended by the Superintendent of Police and ultimately Deputy Inspector General of Police, - -vide his order dated April 20, 1983 allowed the Petitioner to continue in service beyond 55 years, copy of the order communicated through the Superintendent of Police is Annexure P -2. Some adverse remarks were communicated To him on May 1, 1984 by Deputy Inspector General of Police relating to the period May, 1983 to March 31, 1984. Copy Annexure P.3.. Karnail Singh Petitioner was directed to remove the defects mentioned in this report. The Petitioner was still preparing his representation when he received order Annexure P.4 on May 16, 1984 retiring him from the service. Certain other allegations were made in the petition in order to show that on political reasons he was made a scapegoat. The main challenge to the order of his, compulsory retirement is that Superintendent of Police, Respondent No. 4, had no jurisdiction to retire him more so when the Petitioner was allowed to continue in service after 55 years by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The other ground taken is that the Deputy Inspector General of Police while preparing the annual confidential report and after referring to certain matters had merely directed the Petitioner to remove certain defects. On the basis oft the same the Superintendent of Police was not justified in compulsorily retiring the Petitioner.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties. On the question of competency of the Superintendent of Police to pass the impugned order, the stand of the Respondents does not seem to be correct. The stand of the Respondents is that appointing authority of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors is Superintendent of Police as provided under Rule 12.4 of Chapter XII of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable in Haryana. Superintendent of Police is also the punishing authority of Sub -Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors as provided under Rule 16.1 of Chapter XVI of the Police Rules. Thus the Superintendent of Police was competent to pass the impugned order retiring the Petitioner from service on giving three months notice. After careful consideration I find that this contention cannot be accepted in the present case as the Petitioner was -promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector as well as Sub Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. No doubt the Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors as provided under Rule 12.1, however, this rule provides the authorities competent to make appointments. There is a separate chapter dealing with the promotions i.e., Chapter XIII in the Police Rules. Rule 13.3 (2) empowers the Deputy Inspector General of Police to make promotions to the rank of Inspectors. It also provides for substantive promotions to the rank of Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors to be made by Superintendent of Police in the case of District Police. Rule 13.4(2) provides for officiating promotions to the rank of Sub Inspector, Assistant Sub Inspector and Head Constables to be made by Superintendent of Police in the District and if the Deputy Inspector General of Police finds the flow of promotion unevenly distributed amongst Districts, he can make suitable transfers. The relevant rules concerning the case in hand are Rule 13.9 and 13.10. This gives power to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for making officiating or substantive promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector. Sub -rule (2) of Rule 13.9 further provides for making substantive promotion of Assistant Sub Inspectors by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in accordance with Sub -rule (2) of Rule 13.4, Rule 13.10 further provides for officiating promotions of short duration to be ordinarily made within the District concern -eo% - -vide Sub -rule 13.4(2), but vacancies of long duration are to be filled by the promotion of any eligible man in the range at the discretion of the Deputy Inspector General.