IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25666-2015 Date of Decision:06.03.2025 GHEESA RAM ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure P-1) and letter dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P-12) whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service upon attaining the age of 55 years.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police as Constable in 1976. He was promoted to higher ranks from time to time. In 2014, he was holding rank of Sub-Inspector. He came to be compulsorily retired by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Faridabad vide order dated 22.12.2014.

The order dated 22.12.2014 is reproduced as below:

“Notice of Retirement ORDER Whereas, I Phool Kumar, HPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Faridabad is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire you SI Gheesa Ram No.6/SR from service after attaining the age of 55 years by giving three months notice in pursuance of the provision contained in Rule 5.32 A(C) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume- II and rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I as applicable to State of Haryana read with 9.18(c) of PPR on the grounds of your chequered service record.

I Phool Kumar, HPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Faridabad in the public interest hereby order that you SI Gheesa Ram No.6/SR shall stand retired from service under the State Govt. of Haryana on the expiry of 03 months from the date of receipt of this notice.

Sd/- Dy. Commissioner of Police Hqrs, Faridabad No.393327 Dated: 22.12.14 SI Gheesa Ram No.6/SR Through OSI, Faridabad”

3. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner submits that impugned order is stigmatic, thus, is liable to be set aside because it is a settled principle of law that order of compulsory retirement cannot be stigmatic. The order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P-12) indicates that respondent has considered past service record of the petitioner especially the occasions where he was subjected to punishment. The respondent by noticing different punishment orders has made impugned order punitive instead of simple order of compulsory retirement.

4. Per contra, Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana submits that letter dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P-12) is a communication between Inspector General of Police (for short, ‘IGP’) and Commissioner of Police. One authority has forwarded record of the petitioner to another authority. It was internal communication wherein service record of the petitioner was contemplated for the purpose of granting extension beyond

55 years.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. From the perusal of order dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure P-1) which is communicated to the petitioner, it is evident that it is not stigmatic and it has been passed by Competent Authority in exercise of power conferred by Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, ‘PPR’) (as applicable to State of Haryana). The letter dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P-12) cannot be termed as order whereas it is internal communication between two higher authorities. IGP has shared service record of the petitioner to Commissioner of Police. It is settled law that order of compulsory retirement should be non-stigmatic, however, authorities are bound to consider past service record of the employee. The letter dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P-12) indicates that authorities considered record of the petitioner. He was not privity to said communication. He was served with impugned order dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure P-1) whereby he was ordered to be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 years. The conte