Siri Ram Ralhan vs The Inspector General of Police and Another

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—By this writ petition the Petitioner challenges an order dated April 3, 1973, of the Joint Assistant Director (A.D.M.), Indian Border Security Force, confirming the Petitioner in the rank of Inspector in the Indian Border Security Force, an order dated October 24, 1973; of the Assistant Director (Personnel), Indian Border Security Force, stating that the Petitioner would retire from the Indian Border Security Force on January 1, 1974, on attaining the age of superannuation and an order dated March 1, 1974, of the Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh terminating the Petitioners lien in the Himachal Pradesh Police.

The Petitioner was born on January 1, 1919. He was allotted to the Union of India in relation to the areas transferred to Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, and became a permanent employee in the Himachal Pradesh Police. On August 23, 1967, the Petitioner executed a document opting for service on deputation in the Indian Border Security Force in the rank of Inspector. He continued to serve in the Indian Border Security Force for some time. On April 3, 1973, the Joint Assistant Director (A.D.M.) of the Indian Border Security Force wrote to the Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, that the Petitioner had been confirmed in the rank of Inspector in the Indian Border Security Force with effect from January 1, 1971, and that his lien in the Himachal Pradesh Police should be suspended. On receipt of a copy of this communication the Petitioner wrote to the Inspector General of Police stating that he had a permanent lien in the Himachal Pradesh Police and that the said lien should not be suspended. The Inspector General of Police, in the circumstances, enquired from the Indian Border Security Force on May 28, 1973, whether the Petitioner had expressed his willingness to be permanently absorbed and confirmed in the Indian Border Security Force. Another letter dated October 3, 1973, was sent by the Inspector General of Police to the Indian Border Security Force intimating that according to the Petitioner he had not opted for confirmation as an Inspector in the Indian Border Security Force. The Inspector General desired information of the circumstances in which the Petitioner had been confirmed as Inspector in that Force, so that a decision could be taken on the question of terminating his lien. A third letter dated November 8, 1973, was sent again requesting information. It does not appear that these letters received any positive response from the Indian Border Security Force, and again on December 13, 1973, the Inspector General of Police wrote to the Indian Border Security Force specifically enquiring whether the Petitioner had applied for being absorbed in that Force. A copy of the document setting out the option and the Petitioner''s Character Roll and Service Roll were also sent for. The matter had assumed urgency because the age of superannuation in the Indian Border Security Force was 55 years, and if the Petitioner could be said to have been absorbed in the Indian Border Security Force he would, on attaining the age of 55 years on January 1, 1974, be liable to automatic retirement. On receipt of the records from the Indian Border Security Force it was discovered that the Petitioner had never opted for his confirmation in that Force and had merely opted for serving on deputation to the Force. That position was set out in some detail by the Inspector General of Police in his letter dated December 28, 1973, addressed to the Joint Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Paragraph 3 of the letter is of considerable significance. It says:

Despite repeated requests the B.S.F. authorities could not supply original or even a copy of the option of Shri Siri Ram for his confirmation in B.S.F. However, vide W/T No. R-3368, dated 18-12-1973 the D.C.B.S.F. (CRO) informed that the copy of his option contains in the Service Book of officer and sent his service record to us. It appears from the service record that the said officer never opted for his confirmation in B.S.F. He had simply opted for his deputation in B.S.F. The Service Book of Shri Siri Ram is sent herewith for perusal." Accordingly, the Inspector General of Police did not pass an order for the termination of the Petitioner''s lien from the Himachal Pradesh Police.

Subsequently, it appears that the Indian Border Security Force stated that it was prepared to "de-confirm" the Petitioner and revert him to the Himachal Pradesh Police on condition that the Inspector General of Police was agreeable to the proposal. The Indian Border Security Force now took the position that the Petitioner would not retire on January 1,1974,but would revert to the Himachal Pradesh Police. The Inspector General of Police, however, reversed his position and took the stand that the Petitioner had been absorbed in the Indian Border Security Force and was not entitled to assert that he was member of the Himachal Pradesh Police. On March 1, 1974, he made an order stating that "consequent upon the confirmation of Shri Siri Ram (Offg. Inspector/H.P.P.) as an Inspector in the Border Security Force w.e.f. 1-1-1971, vide Office Order No. 26/6/73-ORG/B.S.F., dated 16-3-1933 from the Assistant Director (Organisation), Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General Border Security Force, New Delhi, the lien of Shri Shri Ram is hereby terminated from the Himachal Pradesh Police Department w.e.f. 1-1-1971 F.N., under Rule 12 of F.R." The Petitioner was informed accordingly.

The question which arises in this case, and that appears to be the only question, is whether the Petitioner had in fact opted in favour of his being absorbed in the Indian Border Security Force. If he had not so opted, he could not unilaterally be absorbed in the Force. And if he was not absorbed in the Force, he would continue to be a member of the Himachal Pradesh Police. It appears clear from the record before me that there is no material indicating that the Petitioner ever opted for being absorbed in the Indian Border Security Force. The contents of the letter dated December 28, 1973, sent by the Inspector General of Police to the Joint Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh bears that out. The returns filed by the Respondents contain the bare averment that the Petitioner had opted in favour of being absorbed in the Indian Border Security Force. The averment has been sworn on the basis of official records. There is no indication of what the specific document is. In the face of the entire mass of documentary evidence annexed by the Petitioner to the writ petition, and particularly the letter dated December 28, 1973, mentioned above, it was incumbent on the Respondents to indicate the specific document on which reliance was placed for asserting that the Petitioner had opted for being absorbed in the Force. In the circumstances the allegation contained in the returns cannot be accepted.

It must be taken then that the Petitioner never opted for being absorbed in the Indian Border Security Force. That being so the order confirming him in the Indian Border Security Force, the order declaring that he stood retired from service on January 1, 1974, and the order dated March 1, 1974, terminating his lien in the Himachal Pradesh Police must be quashed. The Petitioner is entitled to be considered as continuing in the Himachal Pradesh Police.

At one stage, it appear, the Himachal Pradesh Police authorities were prepared to take the Petitioner back on condition that he accepted the rank of Sub-Inspector and Officiating Inspector. In my opinion, they were not entitled to impose any condition. On the true state of the facts and the law, the Petitioner must be deemed, after appointment on deputation to the Indian Border Security Force, always to have continued to enjoy a lien in the Himachal Pradesh Police and his acceptance in that service after January 1, 1974, cannot be the subject of any concession or condition. As to what rank he could actually assume in the Himachal Pradesh Police, is not a matter with which this Court is concerned at this stage.

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated April 3, 1973, of the Joint Assistant Director (A.D.M.), Indian Border Security Force, the order date October 24, 1973, of the Assistant Director (Personnel), and the order dated March 1, 1974, of the Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, are quashed. The Petitioner is entitled to be considered as a continuing member of the Himachal Pradesh Police and is entitled to all the benefits consequent upon the quashing of the aforesaid orders. The Petitioner is also entitled to his costs from the first Respondent, which I assess at Rs. 150.