Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Sub-Inspector Ranbir Singh through Legal Representatives – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order and notice dated 30.09.2016 whereby he has been retired upon attaining the age of 56 years. He is further seeking setting aside of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 01.04.2014 to 22.11.2014 as well order whereby he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect.
2. The petitioner belonged to Haryana Police Force and was holding rank of Sub-Inspector. In 2014, while he was holding rank of Sub- Inspector, an FIR dated 04.02.2014 under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 came to be registered against him at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. He was suspended on 04.02.2014 and reinstated on 30.09.2015. He was subjected to departmental inquiry wherein was found guilty of alleged charges. The Superintendent of Police, Panipat vide order dated 31.12.2015 awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. He faced trial and came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by learned Sp
Premature retirement must comply with jurisdictional authority and assessment procedures as per CCS Rules; failure to follow statutory guidelines renders such actions void.
Compulsory retirement of judicial officers is based on overall performance and integrity, not merely on disciplinary findings, and is not considered a punishment.
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
