Chopra, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was employed as Head -constable in the erstwhile Patiala State in 1947. On the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union in 1948, he was intergraded as Head -constable in the Pepsu police. On 13 -3 -1949, he was promoted as Assistant Sub -Inspector against a permanent vacancy, but was reverted to the original post by order of the Inspector General of Police dated 27 -7 -1953. The order was conveyed to him on 31 -7 -1953. Temporary promotion of the Petitioner by the Superintendent of Police in October 1953 was se, aside by the Inspector General of Police and he was again demoted as Head -constable in December, 1953. It was during this period that the ' Petitioner was served with a notice under Clause '(b) of Rule 4 of the Pepsu Civil Services (Safeguarding . of National Security) Rules, 2006 Bk., intimating that since the Petitioner was reasonably suspect -, ed to be engaged in subversive activities and his retention in service was prejudicial to national security he was liable to be compulsorily retired from service under Rule 3 of the said Rules. The notice is dated 28 -10 -1953 and It required the Petitioner to submit his explanation within a fortnight of its receipt. The Petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the charges de tailed in the notice. While the proceedings in pursuance of this notice was still pending, a new set of rules came into force. These are called the Pepsu Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Security Rules'). On coming into force of these Rules the Petitioner was served with a" fresh notice. It is dated 4 -6 -1954, and says: Whereas for the reasons stated in the Annexure it is considered that (a) you are reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities and (b) you are associated with others in subversive activities, and that your retention in the public service is on that account prejudicial to national security, and that consequently it is proposed to retire you from service compulsorily under Rule 3 of the Pepsu Civil Services, (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954 (Copy enclosed), you are hereby directed to submit to the Rajpramukh, through the undersigned, within 14 days of the receipt of this notice, any representation you wish to make against "he action proposed to be taken in regard to you. Such representation, if any, will be consider ed by the Rajpramukh before appropriate order are passed. If you submit no representation' within the time specified, it will be assumed that you have no representation to make against the proposed action and the Rajpramukh will proceed to pass appropriate orders on your case without any further reference to you. It is proposed to place you under suspension, pending the conclusion of these proceedings. However, if you so wish, you will be permitted to proceed on such leave as may be admissible to you, with effect from 15 -6 -1954. You are hereby required to send intimation of your wishes in this behalf immediately. You are further asked to state whether you wish to be heard in person before orders are passed on your case. The annexure enumerated the six charges brought against the Petitioner. The Petitioner again submitted a detailed and lengthy explanation covering eighteen typed pages. Each one of the charges was denied and they were stated to be maliciously based upon the vindictive attitude of the Inspector General of Police towards the Petitioner. The Petitioner, in his explanation requested to be heard in person by the Rajpramukh and also to be allowed to examine certain police officers in his defence. The Petitioner was called upon to appear before the Inspector General of Police on 2 -8 -1954 for being personally heard. He, however, declined to avail himself of the opportunity saying that he wanted to appear only before the Rajpramukh. The Inspector General of Police informed the Petitioner in reply that according to the Rules he could be personally heard by the Head of Department, which in his case, was the Inspector General Of Police. The Petitioner again declined, and pressed that in case he could not be allowed a hearing by the Rajpramukh the matter may be decided at an early date on a consideration of the representation submitted by him. The Inspector General of Police, after considering the material placed before him and the Petitioner's representation, reported that there were sufficient grounds for taking action under Rule 3 of the Security Rules and for ordering compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. The matter was then placed before and considered by an Advisory Committee, consisting of the Chief Secretary, the Legal Remembrance and the Assistant Inspector General of Polios. The Committee arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner has been associated with Communist and Kisan Sabha workers engaged in subversive activities and that his retention in public service, namely the police, is on that account prejudicial to national security and recommended that he may be compulsorily retired from service under the said Rules. The case was thereafter placed before the Chief Minister with the Chief Secretary's note that the Petitioner was found to be engaged in subversive activities in so far as he has been associated with Communist and Kisan Sabha workers engaged in subversive activities. and therefore deserved to be dealt with under Rule 3 and compulsorily retired from State service. This note bears the signature of the then Chief Minister dated 20 -11 -1954, indicating his approval. Orders compulsorily retiring the Petitioner were consequently issued by the Chief Secretary on 23 -11 -1954 and conveyed to the Petitioner. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner questions the validity of this order and also of the order of his reversion dated 27 -7 -1953 and prays for their being quashed.
(2.) SO far as the order of reversion is concerned, suffice it to say that the petition, presented on 1 -2 -1955, was very much delayed. The delay having not been properly explained, I re fused to hear the Petitioner on merits and the prayer is consequently rejected. Rule 3 of the Security Rules says: Where the Rajpramukh is of opinion that a Government servant is engaged in or is reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities or is associated with others in subversive activities and that his retention in the public service is on that account prejudicial . to national security, the Rajpramukh may make an order compulsorily retiring such Government servant from service, Rule 4 provides the procedure for taking action under the Rules and lays down: Before an order under Rule 3 is made: (a) the competent authority shall by notice in writing inform the Government servant of the . action proposed to be taken in regard to him and give him an opportunity to make to the Rajpramukh, within such period as may be specified in the notice, representation in writing against the action; and (b) the Rajpramukh shall take into consideration the representation, if any, so made by him. According to its definition given in Clause (c) of Rule 2 "the competent, authority" in this case was the Inspector General of Polices.
(3.) RULE 5 requires the competent authority to place the Government servant against whom action is proposed to be taken under the Rules. under suspension and also to permit him to proceed on such leave as may then be admissible. Rule 6 expressly excludes the application of anything contained in the Pepsu Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1953, to the proceedings taken under these Rules.;