Prakash Narain, A.C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, as applicable to this court, from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or India filed by Mr. Ranjit Singh Grewal (Respondent No. 1 before us). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under.
(2.) Mr. Ranjit Singh Grewal was appointed to the Indian Police Service in 1954 on probation, having been promoted from State Police Service. He was confirmed in the I.P.S in 1956 He continued to serve in various posts and was at the relevant time holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police in Punjab as on coming into the Indian Police Service he was 'allocated to the Punjab Cadre. By an order dated September 18, 1975, purported to have been passed under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 he was given three months' notice of premature retirement from service with effect from December 24, 1975. According to Mr. R. S. Grewal he had rendered outstanding and excellent service as a police officer which was duly recognised inasmuch as he was promoted from one post to another higher post till he was promoted to officiate in the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police with effect from December 17, 1962 and was confirmed as Deputy Inspector General of Police in June, 1971. According to him, he along with Shri S N. Mathur and Shri J.C. Vachher had been categorised as outstanding officers. The date of his appointment as Deputy Inspector General of Police was subsequently changed as a result of the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 1083 of 1969 but nevertheless his grading as outstanding was retained. According to Mr. Ranjit Singh Grewal, Mr. D S. Grewal, another officer of the Indian Police Service, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition as also in the present appeal, was initially senior to him but on account of his suspension in connection with a murder case he had been superseded. On being acquitted in that murder case Mr. D. S Grewal was reinstated and in due course became the Inspector General of Police. Respondent No.3 is said to have had grudge and ill-feelings towards Mr. R. S. Grewal Respondent No. 3, it was averred, soon after taking over as Inspector General of Police, mala fide hunted out old record pertaining to the service of Mr. R, S. Grewal and communicated adverse remarks said to have been made long time back He also initiated the proceedings for compulsorily retiring Mr. R. S. Grewal and put up the adverse remarks which were communicated as well as remarks for two .subsequent years to a Screening Committee of which he was a member and by influencing the Screening Committee secured recommendations for compulsory retirement of Mr. R. S. Grewal. Those recommendations were accepted without relevant material being placed before the appropriate authorities, culminating in the impugned order dated September 18, 1975 Against this order Mr. R s. Grewal made representations without success. Ultimately, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1495 of 1975 in this court challenging the said order and praying for quashing the same on the following grounds:- "(i) the order is arbitrary and there was no material on the be is of which it could be said that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner. In fact, the order is based upon wholly extraneous considerations ; (ii) Rule 16 (3) under which the impugned action has been taken is unconstitutional ; (iii) the State and the Central Governments never formed the requisite opinion in accordance with the Rules and the law ; (iv) the impugned order is, in fact a colourable exercise of power. The order is, in fact, punitive in character And having been passed without the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity is wholly vitiated ; (v) the impugned order is based upon wholly extraneous considerations. The adverse reports communicated the petitioner vide two letters dated 24-7-1975 and 22-7-1975 relate to the years 1971, 1972-73 and 1965-66 respectively These reports cannot be legally taken into consideration in view of the All India Services (Confidential Roll; Rules, 1970 as they were not communicated within a period of three months as prescribed under these rules."
(3.) The respondents in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution were Union of India, The State of Punjab and Mr. D. S. Grewal.;