Jai Singh Sekhon, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was recruited in the Corps of Signals Indian Army in the year 1941. He underwent the basic Technical Training Course , Grade III successfully in February 1942. He also passed Grade II Trade Board Test of Army Signals in 1944. The Petitioner was undergoing training in Grade I Course in the year 1946, when he was released from the Army due to the termination of Second World War. The record of the Petitioner remained excellent during army service and the Petitioner was also awarded "Indian Service Medal" and "War Medal". The Petitioner was selected and appointed as a Constable/Wireless Mechanic in the Punjab Police Wireless 'Headquarters at Simla in January 1948. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Radio Technician /Assistant Sub -Inspector with effect from 1st June, 1948 in view of his good and satisfactory work. The Petitioner was entrusted with the work of construction, installing, repairing and modifying old equipment which fell to the share of India after the partition of the country. In recognition of his good performance, the Petitioner was promoted as Supervisor/Sub -Inspector with effect from 1st July, 1948. The Petitioner was confirmed as Sub -Inspector Maintenance with effect from 1st february, 1952. The Petitioner's four year's service in the Army was also 'Counted as qualifying experience in the Police Wireless 'Department for the purpose of pension etc. The Petitioner was further promoted as Inspector Maintenance/Incharge Police Radio Workshop and Stores with effect from 28th August, 1963 against the permanent vacancy Which was caused due to the promotion of Shri Prem Nath as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the occasion of re -organization of the State of Punjab, the Petitioner mas allocated to the State of Haryana as Inspector Incharge Police Radio Workshop and Stores with effect from 1st November, 1966. The Petitioner was given good reports by the then Assistant Inspector General of Police Technical and Training, Haryana, for holding independent charge of the post of Inspector Police Wireless Haryana with effect from 1st November, 1966. The Petitioner was given good reports by the then Assistant Inspector General of Police Technical and Training, Haryana, for holding independent charge of the post of Inspector Police Wireless, Haryana with effect from 1st November, 1966 to 22nd September, 1967. The Petitioner was also awarded Rs. 50 as cash reward in recognition of his service in addition to issuing a commendation certificate, -vide order book No. 130, dated 27th March, 1967. The Petitioner was however reverted to the rank of Sub -Inspector Maintenance, -vide order dated 25th January, 1968 by the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, on the ground that he had failed to qualify the Radio Technician/ Operator Grade I Test conducted by the Directorate of Coordination (Police Wireless), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The representation filed by the Petitioner against the said order was rejected, -vide letter dated May 22, 1968. The Petitioner then challenged his reversion before the High Court in C.W.P. No. 2025 of 1968, which was accepted on 9th September, 1969 reported as 1969 S.L.P. 845. The order of reversion of the Petitioner was set aside on the ground that the executive instructions prescribing qualifications for promotion to the post of Inspector Wireless were issued later on to the actual promotion of the Petitioner. Shri Amrit Lal, one of the Respondents in the aforesaid writ petition filed L.P.A. No. 524 of 1969 against the said order of the High Court, which was dismissed in limine, by the Division Bench on 7th November, 1969. In the mean time, one Pishori Lal Sodhi filed Civil Misc. Application No. 5889 of 1969 for setting aside the judgment mentioned above in the writ petition on the ground that he was not arranged as a Respondent although he was a necessary party to the writ petition. This application was dismissed by the High Court on 6th November, 1969 with the observation that Pishori Lal would have had no right which is being claimed by him now because Respondent No. 1 (the present Petitioner) was admittedly senior to him and his chance of promotion would have been after the retirement of the present Petitioner. In pursuance of the above -referred judgment of the High Court, the department, - vide order dated 26th November, 1969 cancelled the order of reversion of the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintained that as he had challenged the order of the Inspector General of Police of Haryana before the High Court in the above -referred writ petition, his superior officers were feeling prejudiced and annoyed against him and consequently after the receipt of notice of the aforesaid writ petition, some adverse remarks were recorded in the confidential reports for the period 23rd September, 1967 to 21st March, 1968. The adverse remarks pertaining to the Petitioner's knowledge of Radio theory being weak as he had failed thrice in Grade I examination, were conveyed to the Petitioner on 14th August, 1968. It is further maintained that these very remarks were again repeated in the year 1968 -1969 and the representations filed by the Petitioner were summarily rejected. The Petitioner avers that these remarks were based mainly on the ground of his having failed to clear Grade I examination, but as it was not a condition precedent for his promotion as Inspector as per judgment of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 2025 of 1968 decided on 9th September, 1969, these remarks were of no consequence. It is further maintained that in the year 1970, the Petitioner was granted a commendation certificate (Class III) along with a cash reward of Rs. 35 for the good work done during the agitation on Chandigarh issue. The work and conduct of the Petitioner for the year 1969 -1970 remained satisfactory and good. Again in the year 1970 -1971 the Petitioner was conveyed the oft -repeated and uncalled for remarks relating to deficiency in the knowledge of Radio theory and on the basis of the failure of the Petitioner to qualify Grade I examination. The representation of the Petitioner for this period was also rejected. The Petitioner alleges that Shri Tarlok Nath, the then Superintendent of Police Wireless was persistently making unnecessary and uncalled for remarks against the Petitioner in the confidential reports of the Petitioner in this regard although the passing of Grade I examination was held by the High Court in the above referred writ petition to be not a condition of service of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector. The Petitioner consequently sought an interview with the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, and submitted a representation in this behalf on 15th May, 1972. Along with this representation, the Petitioner produced a copy of letter dated 9th October, 1968 written by the Superintendent of Police himself showing that the latter did not possess any degree in support of his academic/technical qualifications. This representation was sent through proper channel and when the matter came to the notice of Superintendent of Police (Wireless) Shri Tarlok Nath, he served a show -cause notice dated 3rd July, 1972 on the Petitioner calling upon to explain why he be not censured for producing the aforesaid document from the record. Ultimately, the Superintendent of Police (Wireless) censured the Petitioner on 27th July, 1972. The Petitioner went in appeal against this order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Haryana Shri P. C. Wadhwa,. who rejected the appeal on 9th March, 1973. The Petitioner has further averred that in the meantime on the occasion of 25th Independence Anniversary, the petitioner was awarded the Anniversary Medal for the good service rendered by the Petitioner from the year 1947 to 1972. Again, or the year 1971 -1972, the same adverse remarks were conveyed to the Petitioner and the representation tiled by him was also rejected by order, dated 2nd August, 1973. However, on the other hand, in connection with this very representation, the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, made a reference, -vide No. 17469/B (i) dated 27th . December, 1973 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police H.A.P. asking him to look into the matter and give his independent opinion regarding the repeating of adverse remarks by Shri Tarlok Nath, Superintendent of Police (Wireless) and then the Deputy Inspector General of Police Shri Manmohan Singh after examining the matter sent a detailed reply to the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, - vide his letter dated 2nd April, 1974 to the effect that the adverse remarks about the weakness of Radio Theory of this Inspector were based on the plea that he had failed to qualify in Grade I examination held by the Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless, Government of India and the same could not be ultimately insisted upon in View of the decision of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 2025 of 1968. It was further remarked that the Superintendent of Police Wireless never tested the knowledge of radio theory of the Petitioner and these adverse remarks carry no significance and may be ignored. On receipt of this recommendation of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Haryana, the Inspector General of Police Haryana wrote a letter to Shri Tarlok Nath, Superintendent of Police (Wireless) to evaluate the work and conduct of the Petitioner judiciously and qualitatively and that he should not have repeated the remarks on the basis of the Petitioner having failed to clear the Grade I examination. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner wrote letter dated 1st August, 1972 to the then Chief Minister, Haryana through proper channel tor a personal interview in order to bring certain irregularities committed in the department to his notice, which had already been stated by the Petitioner in his representation dated 8th May, 1972 and 15th May, 1972 addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Haryana. The Inspector General of Police then insisted upon giving details of these irregularities upon which the Petitioner furnished the same, -yide letter dated 22nd January, 1973. Copies of these letters are annexed as Annexures P.6 and P.7 to the writ petition. These representations were entrusted for enquiry to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Shri P. C. Wadhwa who visited the office of the Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Haryana Shri Tarlok Nath and in his presence pressurized the Petitioner to withdraw these allegations. On the refusal of the Petitioner to do so, Shri P. C. Wadhawa without affording an opportunity to the Petitioner for proving these allegations, reported that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate these allegations. With this background, it is averred that for the period from 1st April, 1972 to 30th September, 1972, the Petitioner was again conveyed the adverse remarks on 8th March, 1973. On his representation, the Inspector General of Police called for the comments of the Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Haryana to state the reasons for writing only six -monthly report and not an annual report for the year 1972 -73. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Haryana, -vide letter Annexure P.10 replied that this report should be considered for the entire relevant year. However, another representation against these very remarks for the year 1972 -73 filed by the Petitioner was accepted by the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, -vide letter dated 16th September, 1974 (Annexure P. 11) addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police H.A.P., but it was never conveyed to the Petitioner. It is further maintained that in view of his good record, the Petitioner's case for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police was recommended in the month of April 1974 as indicated by Annexure P.12, but on subsequent query, the Superintendent of Police Wireless, Haryana for the above -referred obvious reasons misstated the facts in the letter Annexure P.13 and on its basis the Petitioner was ignored for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police Wireless. On the basis of this report, Shri Manmohan Singh, then Deputy Inspector General of Police H.P.A. Haryana recommended the case of the Petitioner for promotion against the vacant post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, but stated that some enquiry was still pending against the Petitioner. The Inspector General of Police then directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police Shri Manmohan Singh to complete the enquiry and it was at this stage, that a vague summary of allegations was served upon the Petitioner on 7th August, 1974 in order to harm the Petitioner. Thereafter, nothing happened till 3rd June, 1975, when again fresh summary of allegations was served against the Petitioner for the third time in respect of the same allegations by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hissar Range, -vide letter Annexure P. 16. The Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, but nothing happened thereafter. The Petitioner further maintained that the authorities continued victimising the Petitioner due to the above -referred complaints and he was held up at the Efficiency Bar with effect from 30th August, 1974, -vide order Annexure P. 17, dated 18th December, 1974. The Petitioner challenges this order on the ground that it was based upon the remarks for the year 1971 -72 and six monthly remarks from 1st April, 1972 to 30th September, 1972, which were in fact non -existent being already expunged, -vide order Annexure P.11. The Petitioner then represented against the stoppage at Efficiency Bar to the Inspector General of Police through application dated 17th January, 1975, but this representation was withheld by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and filed. The Petitioner then filed another representation dated 28th July, 1976 addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, through proper channel which was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Wireless, - -wide Diary No. 71516 dated 29th July, 1976 but it was never forwarded to the Inspector General of Police Haryana and ultimately, the department got promoted Shri Pishori Lal, a much junior Inspector to the Petitioner, to the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
(2.) THE Petitioner then filed C.W.P. No. 1402 of 1978 Harjit Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors., which was dismissed by the High Court on 8th May, 1978 as the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, had stated in the written statement that the Petitioner was superseded on the basis of record and not on the basis that he had failed to pass Grade I examination. Thereafter, Shri Tarlok Nath, Superintendent of Police Wireless continued conveying to the Petitioner, stoppage of increments on frivolous grounds of oft -repeated adverse remarks which had been held illegal by the High Court. The Petitioner continued representing every time till his retirement but to no effect. Ultimately, the Petitioner sought an interview with the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration and Training) Shri Iqbal Singh, who directed the Superintendent of Police Wireless to send the applications of the Petitioner dated 28th July, 1976 and 4th September, 1978 which were not received in that office. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police Wireless sent his para -wise reply to the aforesaid representation. Shri Iqbal Singh also gave a personal hearing to the Petitioner as well as to the Superintendent of Police Wireless and thereafter recommended the clearance of Efficiency Bar in the month of May 1979 to the Inspector General of Police, Haryana Shri Manmohan Singh, who being inimical to the Petitioner did not pass any orders thereon till the end of June 1979. Thereafter, Shri P. C. Wadhwa took over as Inspector General of Police Haryana and he being inimical to the Petitioner, passed the order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner at the age of 55 years arbitrarily. -vide order dated 7th July, 1979 (Annexure P.19). The Petitioner was actually retired with effect from 13th August, 1979. The representation for allowing to cross the Efficiency Bar was also arbitrarily rejected by Shri P. C, Wadhwa on 31st July, 1979 after the Petitioner had already received the order dated 7th July, 1979 for premature retirement. It is further maintained that the Petitioner was not granted the benefit of encashment of six months unutilized leave and a cut of Rs. 5 was also imposed in the Petitioner's pension by Shri P. C. Wadhawa, Inspector General of Police, Haryana, -vide his order dated 10th January, 1980 (Annexure P.21). It is further maintained that the representations filed by the Petitioner against these adverse orders were rejected by the concerned authorities arbitrarily. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner seeks the quotient of the order dated 18th December, 1974 (Annexure P.17) stopping him to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 30th August, 1974 and the order of the Inspector General of Police rejecting his representation against that. He also alleged that he was entitled to promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police as his record was good throughout and that at least his compulsory retirement was not legally justifiable. The refusal to grant encashment of six months' unutilised leave at the time of compulsory retirement and the application of cut of Rs. 5 per month from the pension of the Petitioner were also assailed on the ground - that the authorities being annoyed against him due to above -referred application bringing to the notice of the higher authorities the misdeeds of the concerned officials, all the above -referred orders were passed mala fide and arbitrarily.
(3.) ON notice, Shri Yogender Paul, Superintendent of Police Wireless, Haryana filed the written statement on behalf of all the Respondents challenging the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of principle of res judicata as earlier C.W.P. No. 1402 of 1978 filed by the Petitioner on almost similar grounds was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 8th May, 1978. The allegations of the Petitioner on merits were refuted. On the other hand, it was maintained that in view of the work and conduct of the Petitioner, the above -referred orders regarding withholding the Petitioner at the Efficiency Bar not promoting him as Deputy Superintendent his compulsory retirement and withholding the encashment of six months leave preparatory to retirement and cut of Rs. 5 in the pension were perfectly justified. It was also maintained that C.W.P. No. 2025 of 1968 was allowed by the High Court on technical grounds as the qualification of passing the Grade I test for promotion as Inspector, -vide executive instructions issued after such promotion of the Petitioner were held to be inapplicable.;