- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 2.6.2006 (P-4), whereby the petitioner has been retired compulsorily from service. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. As per the averments made in the petition, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.12.1952. He has joined the respondent Department on 15.1.1971 and has completed more than 25 years qualifying service. He was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. On 15.11.1999, one Pardeep Kumar filed a Criminal Complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, alleging that the petitioner has taken Rs. 4,300/- forcibly from him. Pardeep Kumar had sought a direction from the Court against the petitioner to return him Rs. 4,300/- plus Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. On 15.11.2001, respondent No. 3 has imposed on the petitioner a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. Challenging the aforementioned orders the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 3535 of 2003 and this Court vide order dated 13.5.2004 (P-1) set aside the order dated 15.11.2001 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is appropriate to mention here that while setting aside the above mentioned orders, the Division Bench of this Court made it clear that the decision of the writ petition was not to preclude the competent authority from passing fresh order after holding an enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules and after complying with the principles of natural justice. On 2.1.2006, respondent No. 2 served a show cause notice (P-2) upon the petitioner for retiring him compulsorily (P-2). The respondents also supplied to the petitioner the gist of his ACRs for the years 1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, which would indicate that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. In various other columns of ACRs, adverse remarks have also been recorded. The gist of the foregoing ACRs along with conveyed remarks is as under: ASI Kartar Singh No. 2/RR was recruited in Police Department on 15.1.1971 and his date of birth is 1.12.1952 and has completed more than 25 years qualifying service. His service record is examined in this office which is discussed below. He has earned following adverse remarks in his ACR during his service: 05.10.1995 to 31.03.1996: 1. Honest Received oral complaints but not proved. 2. Interest in latest modes of investigations of Police Less 3. Practical knowledge of latest Cr.P.C. Less 4. Confidence Less 5. Special He is having less interest in finishing of his work. Given oral warning a number of times. Needs to do god. Manner of talking is not good. 25.09.1998 to 19.03.1999: 1. Honest Corrupted Reputation 2. Moral Character Not good. 3. Moral courage in showing the wrong on the part of subordinates Average. 4. Manner of behaviour with general public Average. 5. Behaviour with subordinates and with companions Average 6. General control efficiency and skill of organization Average 7. Nature and Character Nature is good and character is average. 8. Skill to command Average. 9. Interest in latest modes of investigations of Police Average. 10. Qualification regarding investigation and solution Average. 11. Practical knowledge of latest Cr.P.C. Average. 12. Faith Unfaithful. 13. Offence, if any and if ever told t his officer He is indiscipline, irresponsible, and careless ASI. He has been condemned 6 times due to delay in investigation and for remaining absent on important occasions. He is habitual of approach for the Posting. He has been given two Advice notes on 16.11.98 and 15.12.98. 14. General His work remained below average for the reporting period. 20.11.1999 to 31.03.2000: 1. Honesty Enquiry is pending for taking money and beating. 2. Manner of behaviour with general public Average. 3. Behaviour with subordinates and with companions Average. 4. General control efficiency and skill of organization Average. 5. Skill to command Average. 6. Interest in latest modes of investigation of Police Average. 7. Qualification regarding investigation and solution Average. 8. Practical knowledge of latest Cr.P.C. Average. 12. Faith Average. 13. Offence, if any and if ever told to his officer Enquiry is Pending. 14. General Work remained Average. 14.04.2000 to 31.03.2001: 1. Honesty Two annual increments were stopped for the offence of taking Rs. 4,300/- bribe while posted as ASI Incharge in Police Station Chhuchhakwas. 2. Moral courage in showing the wrong on the part of subordinates Moral Courage is not. 3. Manner of behaviour with general public Not good. 4. Faith Unfaithful. 5. Offence, if any and if ever told to his officer Two increments were stopped for found guilty in inquiry. 14. General He is a Corrupt ASI.
(3.) The respondents also confronted to the petitioner with various punishments awarded to him in the year 1998-99 along with the prima facie view of the Director General of Police concluding that the petitioner has outlived his utility as police officer and was not fit to be retained in service any further. The aforementioned details of punishments and opinion reads as under: 1. He was awarded punishment of Censure in 1998 for keeping the file with him of case FIR No. 64/98 Under Section 148/149/307 IPC and FIR No. 73/98 Under Section 148/149/307/323 IPC PS Beri Pending W/O any reason. 2. He was awarded punishment of Censure in 1998 for not taking interest in investigations of criminal cases. 3. he was awarded punishment of Censure in 1998 for not furnishing the list of gamblers. 4. He was awarded punishment of Censure in 1998 for not taking interest in investigations of criminal cases. 5. He was awarded punishment of Censure in 1998 for absent from duty. 6. He was awarded punishment of Censure in 1999 for absent from duty. In view of the above resume of service record ASI Kartar Singh No. 2/RR, he has outlived his utility as Police Officer and is not fit for retaining in service any further. It has therefore, been proposed to retire him compulsory in the public interest under PPR 9.18(2). Sd/- Director General of Police, Haryana.;