Amiya Kumar Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner dated 25th October, 1976 passed by the Inspector General of Police under Rule 75 (aa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I.
(2.) The petitioner entered into police service as a directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police and was promoted as Inspector of Police sometime in 1961. On 23rd of May, 1967, he was suspended in connection with the arrest of one Md. Elias. Against the order of suspension, he moved this Court and obtained Civil Rule No. 115 (W) of 1967. An order of injunction was also issued. It is alleged that the order of injunction was disobeyed by the State Government and a Rule for contempt was issued, being C.R. No. 1157 (W) of 1967. The State Government filed an appeal against the order of injunction. But that appeal was dismissed. On 7th August, 1961, the petitioner was summarily dismissed under Art. 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution. He again moved this Court challenging the order of dismissal and obtained Civil Rule No. 6396(W) of 1969 and also an interim order. On June 16, 1970, the said Rule was made absolute, the order of dismissal was quashed. On September 18, 1970, the petitioner was reinstated and posted as Inspector-in-Charge, Alipore Control Room. It appears from the Police Gazette that he Had been superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of D.S.P. On January 17, 1974 he sent a memorial to the Chief Minister alleging malafide against the then Inspector of Police. After the petitioner submitted the said memorial, on 4th of March, 1974, he was served in a lump extract from adverse remarks entered in his confidential character roll for the years 1967-68, 1968 69 and 1969-70. It is alleged that on 7th of April, 1974, the then I. G. called the petitioner at his residence and assured the petitioner that the adverse remarks would be expunged. On 23rd of April, 1974, he made a written representation to the IG of Police, West Bengal to expunge the adverse remarks. On 18th September, 1974, the petitioner joined Enforcement Branch West Bengal. On 7th November, 1974, the petitioner again wrote to the I.G. of Police drawing his attention to his earlier representation for expunging the adverse remarks. On 5th of Match, 1974, the petitioner was transferred as Inspector of Police, D. E.B, Hawrah. On 24th of June, 1975, he received a memorandum informing him that his representation for expunging remarks was being processed. He was asked to submit a specific explanation in respect of each adverse remarks. On 30th of October, 1975, the petitioner pointed out that if he had received those adverse remarks in due time, he could have made out highest case for expunging those remarks. He, however, gave specific explanation for each year. On 31st of March, 1976, the petitioner completed 55 years On 26th of May, 1976, the Review Committee held its sitting and recommended premature retirement of the petitioner. On the 17th of June, 1976 another adverse remarks was communicated to the petitioner by the D.I.G Head Quarters from the annual confidential report for the year 1975-76 after the Review Committee made the recommendation. On 16th of August, 1976, the petitioner was informed by the S.P., Howrah that his representation for expunging adverse remarks in the confidential roll had been rejected by the additional I.G , West Bengal. On 25th of October, 1976, the petitioner received the impugned order of compulsory retirement under Rule 75(aa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I and was given a cheque for 3 months salary. On 8th of November, 1976, he submitted a representation praying for withdrawal of the impugned order demanding justice. Thereafter on the 17th of November, 1976, he moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule.
(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and affirmed by Shib Kinkar Moitra, the present Additional Inspector of Police, West Bengal who was one of the members of the Review Committee who reviewed the petitioners case. In the affidavit, it is stated that on the basis of the broad-sheets and in consideration of the entire service records, with reference to last five years, the Review Committee, reviewed the case of the petitioner and recommended the retirement of the petitioner. The former Inspector General, West Bengal, had merely accepted the recommendation of the Review Committee and forwarded the same to the State Government for approval. There is no time limit in the provisions of Police Regulation, Bengal, 1943 to communicate the adverse remarks. A supplementary affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by Sunil Chandra Chowdhury, the present Inspector General of Police, wherein it is stated that on June 30, 1976, Sri R. K. Gupta, the respondent No. 3 after duly considering the said recommendation of the said Review Committee had given a note on the note sheet of the office file which is set out below:- "Chief Secretary : "Separately on the strength of the recommendation of the Review Committee have forwarded the names of Inspector of Traffic and Railway Range in which compulsory retirement of Inspector D. N. Banerjee who is more than 55 years old now has been recommended. He has had a mixed record. But as he is above 55. I am strongly of the opinion that he should retire. The standard for retirement as we look at it in the force below the age of 55 is that the officer in question should have consistently had record or bad reputation for 2/3 years. Officers of and above the age of 55 needs, in our opinion, one bad record because his value to the service has gone down and he has by then had a chance of acquiring assets and earning reasonable pension. Continued observation after 55 should not be necessary. In any case the lapse on the part of Inspector Banerjee appears to be beyond correction.";