Phool Singh vs The State of Haryana and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner impugns the order of his compulsory retirement dated 30.4.1993 (Annexure P-13). The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1956 and in 1961 he was promoted as a Head Constable. After regularly and successfully completing his professional courses and earning a commendation certificate, he was promoted as an A.S.I. in 1969. Gradually, he rose to the post of D.S.P. when he was promoted as such in the year 1990.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been erroneously retired from service despite the fact that there were no adverse entries against him except for the period from 1.4.1990 to 11.9.1990 and against which he had preferred a representation which was still pending when the impugned order was passed.

Learned counsel for the State states that there were a number of adverse entries against the petitioner even prior to this period and after considering the overall conduct and service record of the petitioner, he was retired from service compulsorily.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, as also the service-record of the petitioner which was summoned during the course of proceedings.

There are indeed some entries against the petitioner regarding his being an ''Average Officer'' for certain periods prior to his being promoted as D.S.P. These entries would be of no consequence considering the fact that the petitioner was promoted as D.S.P. despite such entries. The only question that remains to be considered is as to whether the petitioner has been justifiably retired from service on account of the reports that he had earned after his promotion as D.S.P. Evidently, one of the entries for the period from 1.4.1990 to September, 1990 indicates that he is an officer of questionable repute. This by itself would have been a sufficient justification to retire the petitioner from service when his case was considered at the time of passing the impugned order. But the petitioner had made a representation against the said remarks which remained undecided till the time of passing of the impugned order. This fact has been admitted by the respondents in the reply submitted to the petition.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Baidyanath Mahaptra v. State of Orissa and another 1989 (4) S.L.R. 220 has observed that this causes an immense prejudice to the employee and a loss of valuable right to him.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the representation against adverse remarks against the petitioner were still pending before the authorities when the order of compulsory retirement was passed on the basis of these adverse entries. The impugned order is therefore, set aside. The writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter.