Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) The petitioner was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police when he was issued a show-cause notice dated 2nd August, 1999 (Annex. P-1) under Rule 9.18 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as amended by the Haryana Government (Haryana 2nd Amendment Rules, 1973) (for short "the Rules"). By the said show-cause notice, it was proposed to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. He submitted his reply (Annex. P-2) and the same was considered and the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 9th May, 2000 (Annex. P-11). Against this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through this petition praying for directions to set aside the order and to reinstate him in service. But for the impugned order, the petitioner would have superannuated on 30th April, 2011. The representation against the order was considered and rejected. The material used against the petitioner to put him on pension has been recorded in the impugned order. Even if the remarks for the year 1982-83 assessing the petitioner as average type officer are ignored, being of remote past, but still the Annual Confidential Report for the period 24th August, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 doubted his integrity. In the general assessment, the reporting authority remarked that he is a corrupt Assistant Sub Inspector. In the column of defects, if any, it was recorded that he was caught red handed for taking bribe.
(2.) In the written statement filed by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range on behalf of the respondents in defense of the petition, instances of his past conduct are catalogued and it is stated therein the petitioner was punished and warned on several occasions for committing misconduct. A few instances are that he was awarded punishment of Warning for not taking proper action in FIR No.146 dated 23rd August, 1993 vide OB No.807/94. Similarly, he was punished with an award of Warning for not taking proper action in FIR No.200 dated 29th November, 1993 vide OB No.807/94. Two other warnings were issued vide OB Nos.823/94 and 823/94 relating to investigation in two different FIRs. He was awarded punishment of Censure for "zero performance" during the period 2nd November, 1997 to 15th November, 1997 in connection with weekly diaries vide OB No.143/98.
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the period 24th August, 1993 to 31st March, 1994 and again from 13th May, 1995 to 19th December, 1995 are based on allegations which constituted a criminal charge framed against the petitioner. He was placed under suspension in FIR No.6 dated 4th March, 1994 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon under Sections 7/13 and Section 49 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge was that he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 8.00 lacs and had accepted money as part payment from the complainant. The complainant was stopped by the police while transporting sheep to Panchkula and the petitioner had threatened him with transporting stolen property and if the money was not paid, the complainant would be arrested and the vehicle impounded. Upon this complaint, the case was registered against the petitioner. The decoy witness was Jagdish Prashad PW-6 at the time of passing tainted currency notes to the accused in a trap, but in the trial Yashwant Singh, DSP, PW-9 chose to depute a convenient witness in the person of Ude Singh, Inspector PW10, to act as a shadow witness. The main witness turned hostile. The trial failed vide judgment and order dated 27th March, 1998, as the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court, Rohtak found on the evidence that the prosecution story was not fully proved beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, by giving the accused the benefit of doubt, the petitioner was acquitted of the offences for which he was charged. The currency notes were confiscated to the State of Haryana.;