Sabina, J. - (1.) THE Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction. Alongwith the suit, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 27.2.2010. The said order was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 18.5.2011. Hence, the present petition by the Plaintiff.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the Respondents were liable to be restrained from retiring the Plaintiff pre -maturely on the basis of notice served on him. The departmental proceedings had not been conducted against the Plaintiff in accordance with law. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) THE Plaintiff -Petitioner, by way of the suit, has challenged the notice, vide which he has been proposed to be retired compulsorily. The Petitioner had joined as Constable with Haryana Police on 24.8.1982. The Petitioner was convicted in a criminal complaint No. 75 of 2000 by the trial Court vide order dated 24.4.2008. In appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 5.8.2009. The Petitioner got again involved in FIR No. 418 dated 13.11.2007 under Sections 384, 419, 341 of the Indian Penal code and Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 on the charge that the Petitioner had nexus with liquor smugglers and had taken a bribe ofRs.2,60,000/ - along with Constable Des Raj in lieu of releasing a loaded truck of wine of Harvinder Singh Chadha. During the pendency of the criminal case, adverse report qua recording of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR for short) against the Petitioner was conveyed to him. The Petitioner preferred a revision against the same before Respondent No. 3 but the same was rejected vide order dated 24.9.2008. The revision petition filed by the Petitioner against the said order before Respondent No. 2 was also rejected vide order dated 16.12.2008. In a department enquiry held against the Petitioner, he was found guilty of the charge of taking bribe. Five annual increments of the Petitioner were ordered to be stopped. Thereafter, a show cause notice had been issued to the Petitioner proposing to retire him compulsorily.;