Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khaajan Singh vs St Of Haryana Andors on 7 October, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
VARINDER SINGH
2014.10.28 09:13
Civil Writ Petition No. 13631 of 2001 (1) I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 13631 of 2001 (O&M)
Date of decision : 7.10.2014
Ex. Head Constable Khajan Singh .. Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.5.2001 passed by respondent no. 2 vide which the petitioner was prematurely retired from service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 29.6.1972. Thereafter, he was promoted as upgraded constable on 15.7.1999. He was issued a show cause notice for premature retirement on 5.10.2000 and thereafter by passing the impugned order dated 27.5.2001, the petitioner was prematurely retired from service. While challenging the order, the submission is that the punishment earlier imposed or the entries in the ACRs loose their significance after promotion is granted to an employee. As the petitioner was promoted as upgraded Constable on 15.7.1999, his service record prior thereto could not be considered for the purpose of premature retirement. He further submitted that though in the reply the stand has been taken by the respondents that the petitioner was reverted to the rank of Constable vide order dated 6.9.2000, however, the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further a copy thereof has never been supplied to him. It was further submitted that the impugned order is totally arbitrary and non- speaking.
VARINDER SINGH 2014.10.28 09:13 Civil Writ Petition No. 13631 of 2001 (2) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in terms of Rule 9.18 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as amended by Haryana Government (Haryana Second Amendment) Rules, 1973 (for short, 'the Rules'), police official can be compulsory retired after completion of 25 years of service. Considering the consistent bad record of the petitioner where he had been inflicted punishment of stoppage of 18 increments with cumulative effect at different times, it was found that the continuance of the petitioner in service was not in public interest, hence, he was prematurely retired, sanction of which was taken in advance from the Government. It is wrong to state that the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable as he was merely designated as upgraded Constable. The same is given to constables after a specific length of service, who are not able to qualify the requisite test. When it was found that as per the record of the petitioner, he was not entitled to that benefit, the same was withdrawn on 6.9.2000. Even if the contention of the petitioner is taken on its face value that copy of the order was not served upon him, but still he has pleaded regarding this fact in the writ petition and further even after filing of reply by the State, no steps have been taken by him to challenge the same.
Learned counsel for the State further submitted that for the purpose of premature retirement, the entire service record of an employee can be seen.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
The fact that the petitioner was appointed on 29.6.1972 as Constable is not disputed. Though the petitioner claimed that he was promoted as upgraded Constable, equivalent to Head Constable, however, the order of so called promotion does not show it but it merely states that he was promoted as upgraded constable on 15.7.1999 i.e. after 27 years of service. The contention of learned counsel for the State was that the aforesaid designation is granted to the constables who are not able to qualify the test meant for regular promotion as Head constables. The petitioner was not permitted to use the word 'head constable'.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the authorities finding error in granting the aforesaid designation to the petitioner had reverted him back to the post of constable on 6.9.2000. The aforesaid fact is in the VARINDER SINGH 2014.10.28 09:13 Civil Writ Petition No. 13631 of 2001 (3) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh knowledge of the petitioner as is evident from the petition itself. The petitioner has referred that he has sought the quashing thereof without even producing a copy thereof. In reply to the petition, the respondents have specifically referred to that order in para 9 thereof but still the petitioner did not think it appropriate to challenge the same by producing a copy thereof.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner had consistently bad record. Out of total service of 28-29 years before passing of the impugned order, he had been inflicted number of punishments. In total, his 18 increments have been stopped with cumulative effect. Twice he was awarded punishment of censure. Further he was awarded 10 days punishment of drill on account of unauthorised absence from duty. The details of various punishments awarded to the petitioner are extracted below:-
"The Superintendent of Police, Railways, Haryana, vide his order No. 5672-73 dated 16.3.85 had stopped five annual increments with permanent effect on account of absenting himself from 18.9.84 to 30.10.84 vide OB No. 497/85.
By order of Superintendent of Police, Railways, Haryana, vide order dated 17.8.85 awarded stoppage of five future annual increments with permanent effect on account of misbehaving with Subhash Chander Carpenter on 18/19-7-84 OB No. 1027/85.
By order of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Railways, Haryana, four future increments were stopped with permanent effect for misbehaving with Head Constable Sultan Singh OB No. 506/88.
By order of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Railways & Operations, the punishment of stoppage of five future annual increments earlier awarded by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Haryana, reduced to that of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect while posted at OP/GRP/Ellenabad under the influence of liquor he carried out the checking of tickets of passengers while on train escort duty being VARINDER SINGH 2014.10.28 09:13 Civil Writ Petition No. 13631 of 2001 (4) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh highly indisciplined.
Two future annual increments with permanent effect were stopped vide OB No. 2275/96 for extorting Rs. 360/- from Har Gopal.
Awarded 10 days punishment of drill on account of absenting himself for 21 hours and 50 minutes OB No. 1439/85.
Awarded Censure on account of misbehaving with businessmen while posted at escort duty OB No. 1399/94."
Considering the aforesaid record of the petitioner, in my opinion, continuance of the petitioner in service was not in public interest, hence, the authorities have not committed any illegality in retiring him from service prematurely.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
7.10.2014 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge