State of Punjab and others vs Hari Singh Inspector

K.C. Puri, J.—Challenge in this regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009 passed by Shri Parminder Pal Singh,

learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dated

19.05.2006 passed by Shri S.S. Panesar, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala was dismissed. Hari Singh plaintiff has filed suit for

declaration to the effect that order of premature retirement and annual confidential report against which appeal was rejected by Director General of

Police, is illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional, mala-fide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and against the service rules and

regulations governing the services of the plaintiff and he would be continued in the service if the aforesaid order has never been passed. It has been

averred by the plaintiff that he joined as constable on 1.4.1967 having been appointed by District Superintendent of Police, Ropar. He was

promoted as Head Constable by the District Superintendent of Police, Ropar. He was further promoted as ASI in the year 1984 by Deputy

Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Inspector by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala

Range, Patiala w.e.f. 2.10.1990. He was promoted as Inspector by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh on 1.2.1995 w.e.f.

3.6.1994. An adverse report was made by Sh. R.P. Mittal, Superintendent of Police, 4 IRB, Jalandhar for the period w.e.f. 1.4.1995 to

31.7.1995. The plaintiff filed representation against the adverse remarks on 4.3.1996 as per grounds mentioned in the representation. Vide office

order No. 7913-15/A-I, dated 30.3.1998, the plaintiff was prematurely retired by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. The

order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range Patiala and the adverse remarks given by Sh. R.P. Mittal, SP and order rejecting

appeal are illegal ultra vires, unconstitutional, mala fide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and against service rules and

regulations governing the services of the plaintiff on the grounds mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. Despite notice u/s 80 CPC, the

defendants did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

Upon notice defendant Nos. 1 to 4 appeared and contested the suit by filing a collective written statement taking a preliminary objections therein

that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiff has prematurely been retired in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Civil

Services Rules (Pre-mature Retirement) Rules, 1975.

On merits, it is alleged that plaintiff was promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 1.2.1995. The plaintiff was adversely commented upon in his ACR for the

period w.e.f. 1.4.1995 to 31.7.1995. Plaintiff submitted representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab Chandigarh against the adverse

remarks which is a matter of record and the same was considered and rejected. The punishment of censure dated 9.8.1995 was expunged by the

Director General of Police, Punjab as it was issued after 31.7.1995 i.e. the period of report in addition to this, the plaintiff was awarded four

Censures in the year 1985, 1987 and twice in the year 1995. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the adverse report and order

regarding appeal are legal and in accordance with law. Denying other averments, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

In replication plaintiff controverted the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated those of the plaint.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ?OPP

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD

Relief.

The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. In the light of the same, the trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for

the parties and appraisal of the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.2006.

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2006, the defendants-State preferred the first appeal.

The learned First Appellate Court after re-appraisal of the evidence, dismissed the appeal of the defendants-State vide judgment and decree

dated 14.9.2009.

Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the present regular second appeal has been directed.

The appellant in paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of appeal, has mentioned that following substantial questions of law have been arisen in the

present appeal :-

i) Whether the Ld. Courts below committed material illegality while passing the impugned judgment and decree against the service rules and

without appreciating the provisions of Punjab Police Rules which empowers Deputy Inspector General of Police to be the competent authority to

pass a order of dismissal?

ii) Whether the Ld. Courts below failed to apply its mind judicially while decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent which would be detrimental to the

public interest at large and would also defeat a very purpose of Premature Retirement Rules, 1975?

iii) Whether the Ld. Courts below committed material illegality while setting aside the order of premature retirement which were consequential to

adverse remarks in the ACR of plaintiff/respondent without discussing the issue adverse entries in the ACR.

The short question raised in the present regular second appeal is whether Deputy Inspector General of Police can pass order of pre-mature

retirement in respect of Inspector? Hari Singh Inspector filed suit for declaration and both the Courts below have reached to the conclusion

competent authority regarding premature retirement of the plaintiff is the Director General of Police and as such the same do not sustain the test of

legal scrutiny. The judgments and decrees of both the Courts below have been challenged in the regular second appeal.

The main contention raised by the counsel for the State is that as per Rule 12.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, Deputy Inspector General is the

appointing authority in respect of Inspectors of police. So, it is contended that the Deputy Inspector General of police was competent to pass the

order of premature retirement. However, this matter has been thoroughly thrashed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 3094 of 1986

State of Punjab v. Inspector Surjit Singh. In that case, this Court held that only the Inspector General of Police is appointing authority of the

Inspector and as such Deputy Inspector General cannot pass the order of premature retirement of the Inspector of police. The Special Leave to

appeal was dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 5.12.1988. The State of Punjab filed review petition No. 69 of 1990

before Apex Court raising same questions that Deputy Inspector General has the power of appointment of Inspector and as such order dated

5.12.1988 be reviewed. The said prayer of the State for review of the earlier order dated 5.12.1988 was declined vide order dated 3.12.1993 in

review petition No. 69 of 1990. The counsel for the State could not point out any contrary authority. So, in these circumstances, the concurrent

finding recorded by both the Courts below that Deputy Inspector General has no power to pass order of premature retirement in respect of

Inspector does not call for any interference.

In view of law laid down by this Court and by Hon''ble Apex Court, as discussed above, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial

questions of laws has arisen in the present appeal.

Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict

compliance.