Jeet Ram vs State of Haryana and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 28.7.2006 (Annexure P.1) whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired after he has rendered more than twenty five years of service. The order has been passed by the Inspector General of Police under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana) after obtaining sanction from the Government. The petitioner has been working on the post of Head Constable (EHC) and his service record shows the following adverse entries:

He was awarded punishment of 15 days PD for non wearing cap on sentry duty vide OB No. 775/74.

He was awarded punishment of 15 days PD for remaining willful absent from duty on 28.10.1981 vide OB No. 20/82.

He was awarded punishment of 15 days PD for misbehaving with senior officer and for not obeying order vide OB No. 437/84.

He was awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment W.T.E. for consuming liquor on duty vide OB No. 562/90.

He was awarded punishment of stoppage of two further annual increments W.P.E. for molesting lady constable in EHC store vide order No. 558-61/St dated 20.11.1996.

He was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments w.p.e. for taking illegal gratification vide order No. 594-98 dated 9.9.1998. He filed a civil suit against these orders which was allowed in his favour. The State filed appeal against the order of the lower Court, which has been accepted. During the pendency of appeal, he was promoted as EHC subject to the final decision of the Court.

In respect of item No. 6, extracted above, learned Counsel for the petitioner has candidly conceded that the appeal filed by the respondent- State u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been accepted and the decree of the Civil Court has been set aside. In other words, the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed upholding the punishment of stoppage of two increments on account of the charges of taking illegal gratification which was imposed on the petitioner on 9.9.1998. The service record of the petitioner, as reproduced above, would show that he has earned adverse entries for mis-behaving with senior officers and disobeying their orders. He has also earned the punishment on account of consuming liquor on duty and molesting lady constable in EHC Store and taking illegal gratification.

Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the view that such officials are within the four corners of Rule 9.18 (2) of the Rules. The aforementioned issue has been considered by us in detail in case Babu Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 11670 of 2006 decided on 8.8.2006. In that order, we had made detailed reference to the rules applicable to officials like the petitioner and also considered the parameters of public interest as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, . We have also discussed the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik, and Jugal Chandra Saikia Vs. State of Assam and Another, .

On principles as well as on precedents there is no room to take a warranting different view. The argument of the learned Counsel that the petitioner was given promotion in the year 2004 is an argument of frustration because he was promoted on the basis of judgement and decree in his favour where the order imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments on the petitioner was set aside. The aforementioned judgement and decree has been subsequently set aside by the learned appellate Court in an appeal filed by the respondent-State. It is thus obvious that the promotion of the petitioner was subject to the result of the pendency of appeal, which has now been decided against the petitioner. Such a promotion would not wash various adverse entries available in the service record of the petitioner before his promotion. Even otherwise one entry with regard to honesty and integrity of an official working in the Police Department, particularly, would be sufficient to constitute a basis for an order of compulsory retirement. The record of the petitioner is stinking and the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner is in larger public interest. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.

Dismissed.