Civil Writ Petition No.12543 of 2010 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: October 28, 2010 ASI Rati Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of his premature retirement primarily on the ground that the same has been passed by an officer, who was not competent to pass the said order. The petitioner has also challenged the adverse remarks endorsed in his annual confidential report. The submission is that the impugned order has been passed by Deputy Commissioner, Police Headquarters, Faridabad, Civil Writ Petition No.12543 of 2010 : 2 : who is not appointing authority of the petitioner, and thus, could not have competently ordered the premature retirement of the petitioner. Having been enrolled as Constable on 26.5.1978, the petitioner was promoted as ASI on 23.5.2005 and was serving as such when the impugned order retiring him compulsorily is passed. On 18.5.2007, the petitioner was posted at Gadpuri Naka Mathura Road, when one person, named, Om Prakash was allegedly stopped by the petitioner at Naka while he was travelling alongwith his children. This action on the part of the petitioner was statedly against the instructions issued by the Superintendent of Police, who had instructed that no vehicle should be stopped in which occupants were travelling with or as a family. In addition, old challan book was found in the PCR of the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was awarded the punishment of stoppage of three increments with temporary effect. Appeal filed by the petitioner against this punishment was dismissed. The petitioner also received a communication on 31.12.2008 conveying some adverse remarks endorsed by Inspector General of Police, Faridabad Range in his report for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.12.2008. As per the petitioner, no adverse remarks were given by the Superintendent of Police of the district. The petitioner has now been served a notice on 18.6.2010 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be retired. This notice is issued to him by Deputy Commissioner, Police Headquarters, Faridabad. As per the petitioner, Deputy Commissioner, Police Headquarters, Faridabad is not competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement of the Civil Writ Petition No.12543 of 2010 : 3 : petitioner and he has accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. The respondents in their reply would seriously contest the pleas raised by the petitioner. The adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner are of his doubtful integrity. The respondents would urge that the service record of the petitioner is such that he is a deadwood and his doubtful integrity as recorded in the ACR would be enough to justify his compulsory retirement. The respondents in the reply have referred to a notification S.O./67/HA/25/2008/SS-8,9 & 10/2009 dated 31.7.2009, whereby in exercise of powers conferred under Section 83 of Haryana Police Act, the Governor of Haryana has ordered that for the purpose of administration of police force in the matters relating to appointment, recruitment, promotions and punishment, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters shall exercise powers and perform functions and duties of the District Superintendent of Police, within the entire Commissionerate of Police of Faridabad. On the basis of this notification, the respondents would contest the plea raised by the petitioner and would urge that the order has been passed by an officer, who is fully competent to do so. The counsel for the petitioner could not say anything in regard to this notification, conferring powers on the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the area of Commissionerate of Police of Faridabad. In view of this, there is no meat in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed by an officer, who is not competent to do so. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Faridabad range would be fully competent to pass the Civil Writ Petition No.12543 of 2010 : 4 : order of premature retirement as he has been duly authorised to exercise the powers of Superintendent of Police in respect of all those officers, who are serving in the Commissionerate of Faridabad Range. There is, thus, no merit in the main plea raised by the petitioner. No submissions are advanced by the counsel for the petitioner to challenge the remarks of doubtful integrity endorsed in the ACR of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is so ordered. There shall be no order as to costs. October 28, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE