Appeal against premature retirement order dismissed. Court held impugned order was not mala-fide, was based on service record touching integrity, and did not call for interference. No case for quashing made out.
Instant appeal admitted; case dismissed; order of premature retirement upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
LPA No. 1881 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 1881 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 23.1.2012
Raj Singh Dahiya
. Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. PL Verma , Advocate for the appellants Mr. JS Sidhu, Sr. Addl. AG Punjab.
M.M.KUMAR,J.
LPA No. 1881 of 2011 2
indiscipline in the year 1995. Again in the year 2003, he was awarded censure for extortion of money from the truck driver. He was further censured for not sending the form of the arrested accused for verification. The petitioner was under suspension at the time of scrutiny of his case for extension of period of service beyond 55 years of age for the reason that he did not arrest one accused wanted in FIR registered under Section 302 IPC. When FIR was registered, petitioner was Incharge of Police Station Sector 9, Gurgaon. After murder had taken place on 29.4.2009, he was associated with the investigation of this criminal case with the Investigating Officer. One accused, Ravinder Kumar had confessed that he alongwith Vinod were involved in this murder case. The appellant being a witness to this confession had signed the confession memo. Another FIR was recorded under Section 307 IPC on the statement made by accused Vinod. The appellant investigated the FIR but did not arrest Vinod who was wanted in the murder case. Thus he was found careless, negligent and having been mixed up with the criminals which was a stigma on his integrity. Accordingly, he was not found fit for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years in public interest.
LPA No. 1881 of 2011 3
the learned Single Judge. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the penultimate para of the judgement which reads thus:
“....... The respondents have considered the entire service record of the petitioner, where he was imposed various punishments, one of which was touching on the integrity of the petitioner. One of the punishment was for inefficiency or negligence. Then the petitioner was under suspension for performing his duties in an unsatisfactory manner. The respondents, thus, have considered the overall service record of the petitioner, a course, which was legally permissible under the service rules and would not call for any interference. The petitioner has not made any allegation of malafide or arbitrariness. The order also can not be termed as perverse as apparently the view was formed on the basis and background of the material relating to unsatisfactory service and the order of premature retirement was considered justified. The approach of this Court would be to consider whether the order is sustainable with reference to the requirement of the Rule, rather than examining whether this order can be construed as a punishment for misconduct. This Court can also not sit in appeal over the judgement of the competent authority and can not also substitute its own view for that of the competent authority. Since the order has been passed on the basis of relevant material, which could be taken into consideration in view of the legal position as noticed above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.”
LPA No. 1881 of 2011 4
23.1.2012
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
okg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the premature retirement order denied on service record grounds is sustainable under Rule 20 of the Punjab Police (Pension) Rules.
Whether the High Court could interfere with the single judge's assessment that the appellant's integrity was tainted by conduct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. C. D. M. O., Baripada & Anr.Referred¶19
Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1020 · Who else cites this
Raj Singh Dahiya
State of Haryana
M.M. Kumar
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
