The court affirmed that an appointing authority can retire an employee at 55 years without prior hearing, as per Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, and principles of natural justice do not apply.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent no.4 vide which the petitioner has been served notice of retirement under Rule 9.18 (1) (c) of the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to Haryana).

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had joined the respondent department on 19.11.2008 as a Constable and was thereafter promoted to EHC on 20.11.2021 and a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner along with other employees on the charges of demanding illegal gratification and accepting the same from a vehicle driver. In the said departmental proceedings, statements of 7 PWs were recorded and due opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner and other persons and after following the due procedure, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 03.11.2021 holding the delinquent officials including the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against them. The Superintendent of Police vide order dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and other persons to file a reply to the show cause notice, awarded a punishment of stoppage of 4 annual increments with permanent effect to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Karnal Range, Karnal, who vide order dated 14.02.2022 (Annexure P-2) observed that the charge against the petitioner has been proved beyond doubt but as far as quantum of punishment was concerned, the same was reduced to stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition before the Director General of Police, who vide order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) rejected the said revision petition. The said orders were not challenged and have not been challenged before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that although a second revision petition dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) (after a delay of more than 1 year and 1 month and after the issuance of the impugned notice dated 12.01.2024) has been filed by the petitioner but the same is not maintainable as there is no provision under which the second revision petition is maintainable and thus, admittedly the orders from Annexures P-1 to P-3 have attained finality.

3. The ACR of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 reads as under:-

It is not the case of the petitioner that the ACR of the said period has been challenged and during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the representation against the said ACR has been rejected and no further challenge has been made against the same. The said ACR or its rejection has not been challenged before this Court also. Vide impugned notice dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-5), three months notice of retirement on pension from government service in public interest has been issued to the petitioner under Rule 9.18(1) (c) of PPR (as applicable in Haryana) and it has been stated in the said notice that after the expiry of the said period of notice, the petitioner would be treated as retired from service as per rules. It is the said notice which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no prior hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the said notice dated 12.01.2024 and thus, the issuance of the said notice is in violation of the principle of natural justice and deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has peruse