Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asi Om Parkash vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 August, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.10240 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10240 of 2010
Date of Decision: 12.08.2013
ASI Om Parkash
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 years by invoking the provisions of Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Volume I as applicable to Haryana read with Rule 5.32(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II as applicable to Haryana. The impugned order dated 16.03.2010 (P-7) was served on the petitioner through three months notice required by rules so as he would retire w.e.f. 15.06.2010 when the notice period would expire by efflux of time. The order has been passed in public interest. The petitioner was awarded major punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect vide order dated 07.02.2008. The charge proved was of misbehaviour with public under Mittal Manju 2013.08.21 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10240 of 2010 -2- influence of liquor and for carrying out illegal traffic checking demanding money from drivers and owners of trucks on the pretext of levy of entry fee. Appeals etc. have been rejected and the order has become final resting at the appellate order dated 26.06.2008. The petitioner's conduct was also faulted in investigating case No.131 dated 22.06.2007 under Ss.392, 343 and 34 IPC, P.S. Hathin against accused Nasru who was arrested on 02.07.2007 but no case diary was written from 11.07.2007 to 10.09.2007 resulting in non- completion of investigation within a period of 90 days due to which the accused was released on bail by the Court.
In the departmental enquiry that followed the charges were proven and the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one future annual increment with temporary effect vide order dated 04.04.2008. The allegations proved in the aforesaid matter tantamount to corruption where the integrity of the petitioner remains questionable. In these circumstances, the competent authority found that retention of the petitioner beyond 55 years was not desirable in a uniformed force or in public interest.
On 27.05.2010 this Court issued the interim order that the petitioner shall not be retired pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2010 (P-7) till the next date of hearing. Though there is no order extending the stay order but Mr. Rathee submits that the petitioner was continued in service on the strength of the interim order and during the pendency of this petition superannuated from service in May 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interim order, the petitioner has continued to serve till retirement. He submits that on 08.03.2010 the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, Mittal Manju 2013.08.21 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10240 of 2010 -3- Faridabad Range had recommended the promotion of the petitioner as Sub Inspector vide letter of even date but that recommendation did not fructify into promotion. It is argued that when the petitioner was found fit for promotion as Sub Inspector on 08.03.2010 then he could not have been given notice of compulsorily retirement a few days thereafter on 16.03.2010. This appears incongruous.
On the other hand, Mr. Harish Rathee submits that on formation of opinion of compulsory retirement, there was no question of promoting the petitioner and merely because this Court had granted an interim order of stay that would also not justify grant of promotion since the merits of the case were yet to be tested in judicial review at the final hearing.
Court interference in orders of compulsory retirement are well established and can be culled out from the decision of the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, 1992(2) SCC 299. An order of compulsory retirement on the finding of unfitness or for continued utility in service is neither stigmatic nor a punishment. The State retains absolute power of ordering premature/ compulsory retirement in public interest as guardian of fair and productive administration. Mr. Rathee is right in contending that the real foundation of the charge established against the petitioner is one of corruption and, therefore, there should be zero tolerance in cases of proved corruption.
No ground for interference in the order of compulsory retirement is made out. The writ petition being devoid of merit to stand Mittal Manju 2013.08.21 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10240 of 2010 -4- dismissed. However, due to the interim stay granted by this Court, the salary paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered since he served till retirement. However, the period of service rendered after interim order dated 27.05.2010 will not be counted towards pension and the petitioner's last pay certificate for purposes of pension and pensionary benefits will remain as would exist one day before the interim order and be calculated accordingly.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 12.08.2013 JUDGE manju Mittal Manju 2013.08.21 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh