Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDIP SINGH, J.
Mohan Lal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others – Respondents
CWP No.24331 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-02-2017
Compulsory Retirement - Police Service - Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol-I, Part-I, Rule 3.26(d) and Punjab Police Rules, Rule 9.18(1)(c) - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 3.26(d) of Punjab Civil Services Rules and Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, which grant the competent authority the right to retire a person compulsorily, considering the misconduct and adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the petitioner. The court emphasized the requirement of prior approval of the State Government for compulsory retirement, as per the Rules, and held that administrative instructions cannot override the express rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, sought to quash the show cause notice and order of compulsory retirement issued based on adverse remarks in his ACR and misconduct allegations. The petitioner claimed that the adverse ACR was wrongly recorded and his representation was wrongly rejected. The State argued that the petitioner was retired after completing three months' notice upon attaining the age of 55 years, citing various punishments awarded to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adverse ACR and punishments were based on a limited period and did not reflect the overall performance of the petitioner for the entire year. It held that the prior approval of the State Government was required for compulsory retirement, and the administrative instructions referred to by the respondents could not override the express rules. The court quashed the show cause notice and order of compulsory retirement, directing the Government to consider the ACR for the entire year and take a final decision.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the show cause notice and order of compulsory retirement, the requirement of prior approval for compulsory retirement, and the consideration of the petitioner's overall service record for retirement decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and Punjab Police Rules, emphasizing the need for prior approval of the State Government for compulsory retirement and the consideration of the petitioner's entire service record. It highlighted that administrative instructions could not override the express rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the show cause notice and order of compulsory retirement, and directed the Government to consider the petitioner's ACR for the entire year and take a final decision. It deemed the petitioner to have retired at the age of superannuation with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
KULDIP SINGH J.
1. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 09.06.2010 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service and also for setting aside the order dated 26.10.2010 (Anenxure P-10) passed by respondent No.3-the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, vide which his representation against the adverse remarks has been rejected. He also seeks direction that he should be allowed to continue in service.
2. The petitioner joined the service in Haryana Police as Constable on 29.06.1975 in Gurgaon District. He was promoted as Head Constable on 29.09.1991 and was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 09.04.2003 and was confirmed against the said post on 31.08.2005. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Inspector on 01.10.2008. During the entire service of 35 years, he earned 70% or above good reports. He earned 101 commendation certificate in his character rolls as per the record. The last commendation certificate was earned in the year 2009 with cash reward. The date of birth of the petitioner is 15.04.1955.
3. According to the petitioner, he had registered one FIR No.117, dated 02.07.2009, under Sections 392 and 397 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station DLF, Phase-I, Gurgaon against Malwinder Singh @ Muli and Charan Singh @ Charni on the complaint of one Ravi Tehda when he was posted as S.H.O. at Police Station DLF Phase- I, Gurgaon. On 17.08.2009, said Malwinder Singh @ Muli made a complaint to the Chief Minister, Haryana that FIR No.90, dated 24.05.2009 under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against him along with three other boys of village, namely, Bittu, Bhupinder and Amarpal and the petitioner being the S.H.O., did not show the arrest of Malwinder Singh @ Muli but gave him beatings in the police station. It was further alleged that said Malwinder Singh @ Muli has been falsely implicated in FIR No.117, dated 02.07.2009.
4. It is stated that one SI Karan Singh, CIA Staff, in order to help said Malwinder Singh @ Muli arrested three persons in FIR No.147, dated 14.08.2009 under Sections 398, 401 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon. Petitioner had gone on medical leave on 27.08.2009 and SI Vijender Singh was given the charge of P.S. DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon by DCP East Gurgaon. Thereafter, Malwinder Singh @ Muli and his co-accused got discharged and challan was presented against said three persons, who were later on acquitted by the trial court in case FIR No.117, dated 02.07.2009 on the ground that they have not been identified by the complainant. The petitioner joined the service back in October 2009 and came to know about the proceedings of the said FIR. The petitioner claims that three other persons were sentenced in the said FIR No.117, dated 02.07.2009.
5. It is further stated that thereafter a show cause notice dated 09.06.2010 (Annexure P-3) was issued to him under Rule 3.26 (d) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol-I, Part-I and Rule 9.18(I)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana that his services are not required beyond the age of 55 years in public interest.
6. Thereafter, the order endorsed on 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-4) was passed, whereby the petitioner was retired at the age of 55 years. Petitioner claims that as per Instructions of the Government, only those employees are allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years, who have earned 70% or above good reports and whose integrity is not doubted for the last 10 years. However, the case of those, who on the basis of service record are fit to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years but the integrity is reported to be doubtful, are to be decided by the Head of the Department in view of the Instructions dated 11.04.2005 (Annexure P- 2).
7. The petitioner claim
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
