Vijender Jain, C.J. - (1.) The appellant after passing his matriculation examination, joined the Police Force as a Selection Grade Constable at Faridkot, in the State of PEPSU on 2.1.1951. He passed the Lower School Course in August 1954 and was promoted as Head Constable on 1.6.1957. On 11.04.1960, he was brought on promotion list 'D' and promoted as officiating A.S.I. on 1.12.1961. On 31.03.1962 he was sent to Intermediate Course at Police Training School, Phillaur. Thereafter, he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and was confirmed as ASI with effect from 17.1.1975 and further confirmed as SI from 10.05.1980 vide order dated 1.8.1983. During this period he earned a large number of commendation certificates and cash rewards for his good work. He received a notice dated 10.2.1983 requiring him to show cause why he be not compulsorily retired in terms of Punjab Police Rule 9.18 (2) as applicable to the State of Haryana. The appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice, but vide order dated 12.08.1985 he was served with a notice. On expiry whereof, it was ordered that he would be deemed to have been retired from service. The appellant, impugned the order of compulsorily retirement. Vide the impugned order dated 11.02.1003, the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) Mr. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge relied upon adverse entries for the year 1983 -1984, thus, vitiating the impugned order. As these entries, came into existence after issuance of the alleged show cause notice, they could not be considered. It is further contended that the appellant ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard before the order of compulsorily retirement was passed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as A.S.I. Harinder Singh v/s. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) P.L.R. 540. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the order of compulsory retirement, has been passed without taking re -course to the safeguard provided under the Punjab Police Rules. Rule 9.18(Note 2) which is to the following effect: Note 2: - The officer shall be given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make against the proposed action and such representation shall be taken into consideration before his compulsory retirement is ordered. In all cases of compulsory retirement of enrolled police officers, the Inspector -General of police shall effect such retirement only with the previous approval of the State Government in accordance with the instructions, if any, issued by the Government on the subject from time to time.
(3.) It is further contended that the appellant was promoted as ASI in the year 1974, thereafter to the post of the S.I. in the year 1980 and, therefore, the adverse entries, in the ACRs prior to 1974 and 1980, could not have been taken into consideration while compulsorily retiring the appellant. It was also urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that without holding a departmental enquiry, no adverse opinion could be formulated, to compulsorily retire the appellant from service. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment titled as A.S.I. Radhey Shyam v/s. State of Haryana and Ors., 2001(3) S.L.R.18.;