Gujarat High Court
Girdharsinh Ramsinh Parmar vs Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 23 February, 1988
Equivalent citations: (1988)2GLR1095
JUDGMENT D.H. Shukla, J.
1. The petitioner, Girdharsinh Ramsinh Parmar, has filed the present Special Civil Application, having been aggrieved by the order to prematurely retire him in public interest, dated 21-7-1987.
2. The petitioner joined the Police Force in the former State of Saurashtra on 13-7-1951 and on 1-10-1951 he was promoted as an Unarmed Head Constable in the District of Rajkot. Later on, taking his efficient discharge of duties into account, he was upgraded as IIIrd Grade Head Constable and thereafter as IInd Grade Head Constable. He was also selected for training as P.S.I. in the year 1961. After he completed his training, he was posted as a probationary P.S.I. for practical training in Baroda District in the year 1962. While he was at Baroda, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him, in which he was reverted to substantive tank of Head Constable for a period of three years. After completion of three years, he was again promoted as P.S.I. and he was confirmed as P.S.I.
3. While he was serving as P.S.I. at Amreli, a departmental inquiry was held against him in respect of minor charges, but he was exonerated from them. While he was at Bhavnagar, again two different inquiries were held against him for minor charges, from one of them he was exonerated and the second charge is still pending. He a vers that none of the charges levelled against him relates to his integrity. He further avers that except those aforesaid inquiries, no adverse remarks have been communicated to the petitioner. However, he has been served with an order dated 21-7-1987 whereby he is prematurely retired. He has assailed this order on several counts which it is not necessary for me to recapitulate here.
4. Rule on the petition was issued on 24-11-1987 was made returnable on 9-12-1987.
5. The respondent has filed the affidavit-in-reply of Deputy I.G.P., SSR, Junagadh, dated 25-9-1987. It is contended in the afidavit-in-reply that the case of the petitioner was considered when he was to attain the age of 55 years, and after due deliberation it was found that it would not be in public interest to continue him in service. It is specifically contended that it is open to the Government authorities to retire a Government servant upon his attaining the age of 55 years in public interest and that in the instant case upon perusal of service records of the petitioner, the respondent and the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, have reached a conclusion that it would be necessary to prematurely retire him.
6. It is contended that the petition suffers from the vice of suggestion falsi, inasmuch as the petitioner is not having a good service record, as suggested by him. He has himself admitted in the petition that he was punished and was reverted to a lower post during his service. It is denied that no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was communicated adverse remarks for the year 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1982-83 and 1985-86. It is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed the above referred facts.
7. It is further contended in reply to the ground of challenge in the petition regarding the constitution of the Review Committee according to the Circular dated 7-5-1986, that the same is not applicable to the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 425-600 and not in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-2000 and therefore the notification dated 7-5-1986 is not applicable to him.
8. It is further contended that the petitioner was specifically instructed to control the illegal activities at Gogha Police Station, but he did not take any effective steps in that regard, whereas the Task Force had raided several places and had filed 14 Cases under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. This suggests that either the petitioner was absolutely careless or negligent in performance of his duties or be was showing undue favour to the persons involved in the sale and purchase of liquor. It is submitted that a departmental inquiry in this regard has also been instituted against the petitioner, which is pending. Even otherwise, he was found to be a very weak Police Officer. It was under these circumstances that it was in the public interest prematurely retire him.
9. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit-in-rejoihder dated 14-10-1987. It is denied that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the concerned authority and that the premature retirement is decided after due deliberation or careful consideration. It is submitted that the petitioner's case has not been considered as required by the guidelines laid down by the Government. It is denied that the petitioner was communicated adverse remarks in confidential records for the years stated in the affidavit-in-reply. He has submitted categorically that no adverse remarks had been, communicated to him.
10. He has further stated that by the Government Resolution dated 1-6-1987, bearing G.N.F.D. No. ECR/1087/339/2/M, the pay scale of the cadre of Police Sub-Inspector including the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1640-50-EB-75-2900 with effect from 1-1-1986.
11. It is denied that he was negligent or careless in the performance of duties, as contended in the affidavit-in-reply.
12. I have heard the learned Advocate, Mr. J.R. Nanavati, for the petitioner, and Mr. M.C. Patel, the learned A.G.P. I have also gone through the relevant portion of the petitioner's service record. Having gone through the record, I am of the view that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who has passed the impugned order dated 21-7-1987, with respect, has not properly applied his mind in passing the impugned order. A reference may be made to the circular of the Government, General Administration Department dated 25-10-1963. It is stated therein, inter alia. "Six months before a Government servant attains the age of 55 years, his record should be carefully examined by the authority competent to make an appointment to the post which he is holding, whether in an officiating or substantive capacity and a decision should be taken whether he should be retired on attaining the age of 55 years." In the same circular, it is further stated: "Where the authorities concerned come to the conclusion as a result of this examination that a Government servant should be retired prematurely. They should record fully and clearly considerations and reasons for their conclusion and where it is necessay to obtain the previous approval of the next superior authority or Government the reference in this regard should give a full indication of the considerations and reasons for the proposal" In a circular of the Government, General Administration Department, dated 2nd November, 1976, it is specified that while reviewing cases for retention beyond 55 years of age, consideration should not be restricted to the last three years, but reports during the last eight to ten years should invariably be taken into account.
13. In the present case, the impugned order is passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saurashtra. South Range, Junagadh. It it, therefore, necessary that the record should reveal that he has himself carefully examined the service record of the petitioner and the confidential record of the last 8 to 10 years in particular, before passing the order of premature retirement. It is required that the officer passing the order of premature retirement should record fully and clearly consideration and reason for his conclusion. The impugned order only states that in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 161(1)(AA)(1)(i) of B.C.S., Vol. I, it has been decided to retire the petitioner prematurely in public interest. May be that the impugned order itself may not indicate the reasons which weighed with him. but, at least, record must show clearly the factors which weighed with him in passing the impugned order. On perusal for the record before me I find that the proposal for the premature retirement was made by the District Superintendent of Police Guru Dayal Singh, by his letter dated 6-6-1987, to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Junagadh (at page 57 of the record). I shall revert to this letter of proposal for premature retirement a little. The Deputy Inspector General of Police in turn wrote a letter to the Director General of Police, State of Gujarat, dated 17-6-1987 (at page 65 of the record produced before me) wherein he only stated that he was in agreement with the remarks made in the letter of the District Superintendent of Police, dated 6-6-1987 and by the same letter he sought permission of the Director General to prematurely retire the petitioner.
14. The Office of the Director General of Police wrote a letter dated 25-6-1987 (at page 83 of the record produced before me) that there were certain inconsistencies in the proposal forwarded by the D.I.G. and it was specifically directed in that letter that the D.I. G.'s observation that he was in agreement with the proposal was not proper and that he should state detailed and self-sufficient proposal along with his clear opinion about the premature retirement urgently. It seems that the D.I.G. clarified the inconsistence by his letter dated 29-6-1987 (at paga 87 of the record produced before me), but he did not forward the detailed reasons for his agreeing with the proposal originally made by D.S.P. This letter needs a very carefully perusal. As pointed out earlier, the Circular dated 25-10-1963 peremptorily requires that the authority should record fully and clearly considerations and reasons for his conclusion to prematurely retire a subordinate officer. Not only that this is not found in the impugned order, but that it is also not found in the D.I.G.'s letter dated 17-6-1987. Even when he was specifically directed to do so, by the letter of the Office of the Director General of Police dated 25-6-1987, be failed to give reasons, much less detailed reasons for reaching the conclusion of premature retirement of the petitioner. Thus, there appears to be non-application of mind on the part of the D.I.G. in passing the impugned order.
15. I may now refer to the proposal of premature retirement made by the District Supreintendent of Police by his letter dated 6-6-1987. He has referred to the confidential records of the petitioner from 1975-76 to 1985-86. He has referred to the adverse report of the years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1985-86. There is no reference made as regards the confidential records of the years 1979-80 and 1983-84.
16. The confidential record of the petitioner for the period from 1-4-1974 to 31-3-1976 reads that petitioner's control over his subordinate is poor, whereas the very next confidential report of 1976-77 by the same reporting officer discloses that petitioner's control over his subordinates is good. If we read the confidential record further in the same light, the confidential record of the petitioner for the period from 8-4-1977 to 2-8-1977 reads that the petitioner's control over his subordinates is poor. In the next confidential record for the period from 8-8-1977 to 31-3-1978, it is stated as Fair'. In the confidential record of the petitioner for the year 1978-79. It is stated that his control over his subordinates is 'Fair', in 1979-80, it is stated that his control over subordinates is 'Good'. In the confidential record of the petitioner for the year 1983-84, it is stated that his control over his subordinates is good. I have only given an instance. Such inconsistency in successive confidential records are in regard to other heads also. In the confidential record of the petitioner for the year 1978-79, all the remarks are in favour of the petitioner. The general remarks are to the effect that the petitioner is sincere and obedient, that he takes interest in his work, that he is regular in discharging his work as Reader PSI. The confidential record of the petitioner for the year 1979-80 is also good. In general remarks it is stated that the petitioner is hard-working and obedient and that he performs his duties as a Reader PSI satisfactorily. In the confidential record of the petitioner for the year 1983-84 also, the remarks are favourable to the petitioner. In the general remarks, it is stated that the petitioner is discharging his duties satisfactory. So far as the exsecise of his powers are concerned it is stated that he can exercise his powers entrusted to him. There was an allegation of bribe against him, but in the departmental inquiry he has been exonerated.
17. The circular dated 2-11-1976 referred to above directs that consideration should not be restricted to the last three years, but reports during the last 8 to 10 years should invariably be taken into account. The Authority proposing premature retirement has stated the years as during the last 10 years wherein adverse remarks are found, but there is no mention whatever of the three years, namely, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1983-84. In which years the remarks favourable to the petitioner are also found. Not only that there is nothing in the proposal to indicate that the remarks of these years have been taken into account, but there is also nothing to indicate that either the proposing authority or the authority which passed the order made a comparative study of the confidential records of the petitioner for the years in which adverse remarks were made and of those years in which favourable remarks were made. I have indicated earlier that the authority concerned should have applied its mind as to how the confidential records proceeded from year to year on each of the heads, and if there is any discrepancy found in any material heading of the confidential records, there should be an application of mind as to the discrepancy. On the one hand, it is true that the Government has intended chopping the dead wood off, but at the same time Government has taken care to see, as is evidenced in different circulars relating to premature retirement that a person's service career should be put an end to prematurely only after due deliberation of the service record, and particularly of the confidential reports of the last 8 to 10 years. In the present case, the authority concerned has not given detailed reasons for his conclusion. But even the proposal does not indicate proper and detailed consideration of the matter. As a matter of fact, as I have pointed out earlier, the Office of the Director General itself is not satisfied with the D.I.G.'s letter wherein he had indicated his broad agreement with the proposal. The Director General's Office itself directed the D.I.G. to give detailed reasons, but these directions appeared to have remained uncomplied with.
18. In view of the record before me, I suggested to Mr. M.C. Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the authorities concerned may properly apply their mind and reconsider their decision, but I am given to understand today that the department does not desire to do the exercise at this juncture. I am, therefore, required now to decide the matter myself. For the above stated reasons, I find that the impugned order is not satisfactory and that it is not in consonance with the various circulars issued by the State Government, referred to by me above.
19. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed and the impugned order, dated 21-7-1987, prematurely retiring the petitioner, vide Annexure 'A', is hereby quashed. In view of the fact that the impugned order is quashed, the petitioner shall be deemed to continue in service. Rule made absolute accordingly with costs quantified at Rs. 250/-.
20. It will be open to the respondent-authorities to take a fresh decision in accordance with law.