M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 28.1.2011 rendered by learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent could not have been prematurely retired. The learned Single Judge after noticing the punishments awarded to the writ petitioner-respondent has reached the conclusion that unless his integrity was doubted, the order of premature retirement could not have been passed. For the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on instructions dated 14.3.2006 (P-2) to say that once the rules and instructions prescribed that the entire conduct of the petitioner is to be seen and evaluated then the order of compulsory retirement would be regarded as arbitrary if there is nothing against him. It has further been concluded that if the appellant-State was not satisfied with the conduct of the writ petitioner-respondent, in so far as his approach to investigate crime is concerned, then he could have been adjusted elsewhere by giving him lesser assignment. The learned Single Judge opined that the order of compulsory retirement could not have been passed against him.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner-respondent has come on the Rolls of the Police Department on 19.4.1976. His date of birth is 15.4.1955. After under going Lower School Course he was promoted as Head Constable on 8.11.1994 and was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 2.2.2004. It remained undisputed that he suffered many punishments during last 10 years preceding the date of notice of premature retirement which is evident from para 3 of the written statement which reads as under:- "(a) In the year 2001 when the petitioner was posted in police post Shivaji Colony, Rohtak he retained case file of FIR No. 162/2001 with him even after his transfer from police Post Shivaji colony and hence punishment of censure was given to him. (b) For showing negligence in discharge of official duties he did not take interest in disposing of tracing 15 criminal cases of P.S.Sadar Rohtak, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered and punishment of stoppage of two annual increment with permanent effect was awarded vide order dated 31.10.2006. However, on appeal to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range Rohtak the punishment was scaled down to stoppage of one annual increment with temporary effect. ( c) On 18.3.2008 the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of dereliction in duty and disobedience/orders of DSP Detective. Regular departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with temporary effect and the suspension period i.e. 18.3.2008 to 2.5.2008 was ordered to be treated as period not spent on duty for all intent and purposes. (d) The petitioner committed gross negligence in conducing investigation of case FIR No. 20/2009 P.S. Shivaji Colony Rohtak show cause notice was given to him but he did not dare to reply the same and hence punishment of censure was given to him vide OB No. 644/2009. (e) The petitioner conducted improper investigation of case FIR No. 189 of 21.8.2009 under Sections 148/149/323/324/452/506 Indian Penal Code Police Station Shivaji Colony. A regular departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner."
(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid record, his case regarding retention in service beyond the age of 55 years was sent to Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range on 11.11.2009. After taking into account the period of 2001 to 2009, the writ petitioner-respondent has been prematurely retired after following the due course. He was given three months notice on 24.5.2010 and he stood retired on the expiry of three months.;