Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asi Dilbagh Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 August, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18, 2010
ASI Dilbagh Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Handa &
Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Having made a prayer for voluntary retirement from service, which was ordered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the order of voluntary retirement on the ground that he was forced to make request in this regard and, thus, the order is not sustainable.
The factual background, as would reveal from the writ petition is that while serving as Assistant Sub Inspector and having 32 years of service, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 12.12.2007. The allegation made against the petitioner was that he CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }:
had sent some persons to the studio for preparing a blue C.D with an aim to extract money from the person running the studio. Alongwith the petitioner, another Head Constable Anil Kumar, was also accused of being involved with the petitioner in this episode.
The petitioner alongwith HC Anil Kumar was charge-
sheeted. Enquiry Officer was detailed to enquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence of various witnesses found that no case was made out against the petitioner and HC Anil Kumar. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. S.P., Yamunangar, disagreed with the enquiry report and issued show cause notice to the petitioner as well as Head Constable Anil Kumar requiring them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated. The petitioner and Head Constable Anil Kumar submitted their joint reply, pleading their innocence. The petitioner thereafter was called by S.P in his office for personal hearing. As per the allegation, the petitioner was compelled to write a back dated application dating 29.10.2008 containing a prayer for voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.1.2009. The petitioner claims that being so pressurised, he signed this application, seeking voluntary retirement, which was not a voluntary act on his part but was so done being compelled by the circumstances. The petitioner would refer to the case of his co- accused HC Anil Kumar, who was also issued show cause notice but was left with penalty of stoppage of two annual increments. The petitioner accordingly has challenged the action of the respondents, urging that the application of his voluntary retirement was not voluntary in nature.
The respondents, in response, would submit that the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }:
petitioner himself had opted for voluntary retirement and had given application in this regard on 29.10.2008. As per the respondents, on the basis of his request, the petitioner was voluntarily retired. The allegation of threat and duress as mentioned are denied. It is rather pleaded that the petitioner has to prove this fact that there was duress or threat, which would be a matter of evidence. In a way, the respondents seem to be urging that the writ would not be an appropriate remedy to go into these disputed questions of facts.
The respondents would rather point out that as per the own showing of the petitioner, he was asked to give application on 15.1.2009 and was retired on 31.1.2009. The petitioner never submitted any application pointing out that he was forced to give application for voluntary retirement by making it to back date during the time he remained in service or even thereafter before approaching this Court through the present writ petition. This, according to the respondents, would be enough to disbelieve the plea raised by the petitioner that he was forced to seek voluntary retirement.
The counsel for the petitioner has made strenuous efforts to point out that the petitioner had not submitted the prayer for voluntary retirement voluntarily. The counsel has made extensive reference to Annexure P-5 to urge that this would clearly indicate that the petitioner was forced to make a prayer for voluntary retirement. I have not been able to appreciate how Annexure P-5 can be read to say that the petitioner has not voluntarily submitted the application. The counsel even went to the extent of saying that if this Annexure would go to prick the conscious of a Court, then the petitioner may be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 4 }:
granted relief. This argument, being absurd in itself, certainly have no legal basis to stand. It is not really understood as to how the conscious of the Court was being provoked for a person who was accused of a serious misdemeanour. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had detailed two persons to prepare a blue C.D with an intention to extract money from Sh.Amit Sharma son of Sh.Om Parkash Sharma, who was having Swami Studio. This aspect to the allegation had appeared in the newspaper, which had brought real bad name to the police. On being charge-sheeted, enquiry was held against the petitioner. The versions of the witnesses were recorded and the petitioner and his co-accused was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce their defence. No doubt, the Enquiry Officer found the charge not proved but the disciplinary authority had the power to differ with the finding and while doing so, had issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice, which was thoroughly analyzed by the Disciplinary Authority. The statements of Mangu Mehra and Rahul revealed that the petitioner and HC Anil Kumar had been sending these persons to prepare a blue C.D by paying money and they were doing this work for the petitioner. These witnesses had stated before the Enquiry Officer that they did not know the petitioner and HC Anil Kumar. Their version was rightly disbelieved by the Disciplinary Authority as they obviously were being made to state so being under the control of the petitioner. They had supported the prosecution during the preliminary enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority found Mangu and Rahul as persons with criminal propensity against whom the case had also been registered CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 5 }:
and, thus, had a interest to give a tainted version. The reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority is well founded.
Not only that, both the delinquent officers while appearing before the Disciplinary Authority begged for pardon. In addition, the petitioner pleaded that he had a long service to his credit and due to this he may not be dismissed from service. The petitioner also pointed out that he had given his prayer for voluntary retirement and pleaded that a lenient view be taken and he be left by allowing his prayer for voluntary retirement. By showing leniency, the petitioner was left by accepting his prayer for voluntary retirement. Had it not been so, the petitioner was liable to be dismissed.
The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was forced to submit prayer for voluntary retirement is neither made out nor can be so accepted. Apparently, the plea that the petitioner had no reason and a cause to seek voluntary retirement, once he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer is clearly being advanced while ignoring the legal position that the Disciplinary Authority had power to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Indeed, the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the said finding. Faced with this situation, the petitioner apparently chose a easy way out by seeking voluntary retirement, which was permitted by taking a lenient view. The petitioner now is changing stance by raising these false and frivolous pleas that he was forced to seek voluntary retirement, which is not supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. Rather, the evidence on record points to the contrary position. As already noticed, the petitioner never made any application or grievance before any of the authorities that he was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4629 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 6 }:
forced to seek voluntary retirement by S.P., Yamunanagar, which is the case set up in the writ petition. It is for the first time now that the petitioner has so disclosed in the writ petition that too without any support of any material. It is only his version alone, which is pressed in support of his plea and this is required to be discarded being a self serving statement without any basis.
There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
August 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE