107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Shamsher Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 31.10.2021 whereby he was ordered to retire under Rule 9.18(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’).

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police as Constable in December’ 1991. He was promoted from time to time. He came to be implicated in FIR No.544 dated 09.08.2014 under Sections 365, 384, 388, 506 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi. He was arrested on 01.03.2015 and thereafter released on bail on 16.01.2016. He remained absent from duty for 396 days and respondent in this regard recorded DDE No.09 on 17.12.2014. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him. He was issued show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 22.08.2016 dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal which came to be partially allowed by Inspector General of Police (IGP), Karnal vide order dated 21.04.2017. The Appellate Authority substituted punishment of dismissal from service for stoppage of five increments with permanent effect, however, subject to final decision of criminal case registered against him. The respondent issued him show cause notice dated 22.01.2021 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be retired as per Rule 9.18(2) of PPR. In the show cause notice, grounds for retirement were duly disclosed. The petitioner filed reply to said show cause notice and Director General of Police (DGP) vide order dated 30.10.2021 ordered to retire him with immediate effect.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was awarded commendation certificates and was punished by Appellate Authority in 2017 whereas impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed in 2021. There was a gap of almost four years between the date of punishment awarded by Appellate Authority and impugned order. There was no occasion to rely upon order of dismissal from service or order of Appellate Authority whereby punishment of stoppage of five increments was awarded. There was no change in the circumstances, thus, impugned order is bad in the eye of law. The respondent has withheld his leave encashment and gratuity on account of pending criminal case.

4. Learned State counsel reiterates findings of the departmental authorities and submits that no interference is warranted. The petitioner belongs to a disciplined force, thus, his conduct must be above board. He is bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The object of compulsorily retirement of a Government servant is to weed out the dead woods in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service as well as to dispense with services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.

6.1 The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel 2001 (3) SCC 314 has elaborated principles which ought to be followed in the matters relating to compulsory retirement. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus:

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.

(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order