C.W.P.Nos.7367 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) C.W.P.Nos.7367 of 2010(O&M) Raj Kumar Tokas ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENT(S) (ii) C.W.P.Nos.5445 of 2011(O&M) Raj Kumar Tokas ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENT(S) Date of Decision 18.11.2011 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER *** Present : Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate (in CWP No.7367 of 2010) and Mr.P.L.Verma, Advocate (in CWP No.5445 of 2011) for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent(s)-State. *** MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of aforesaid two CWP Nos.7367 of 2010 and 5445 of 2011. In CWP No.7367 of 2010, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.02.2010 (Annexure P-11) vide which a notice was issued to retire him compulsorily after giving him three months notice. The reason for the respondents to retire the petitioner compulsorily was that his integrity for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.07.2009 C.W.P.Nos.7367 of 2010 2 was not good and he was involved in another incident of taking bribe which also reflected upon his integrity. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect when he was held guilty in departmental proceedings for taking bribe of Rs.25,000/- from one Smt.Bala Devi for letting off two suspected persons while posted in Police Station Bhondsi, Gurgaon. The respondents have stated that they have considered the entire record of the petitioner and at the time of hearing it was pointed out that the petitioner had got two adverse entries regarding his integrity. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Rule 9.18(2) has contended that it was imperative for the respondents to give a notice to enable the petitioner to represent against the proposed action before the order of compulsorily retirement could be passed. Rule 9.18 (2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is extracted herewith:- “9.18 Retiring Pension (1) xxxx xxx xxx (2) The Inspector-General of Police may, with the previous approval of the State Government, compulsorily retire any Police Officer, other than that belonging to Indian Police Service or Punjab State Police Service, who has completed ten years qualifying service, without giving any reasons. An officer who is so compulsorily retired will not be entitled to claim any special compensation for his retirement.” It is contended before this Court that serious prejudice has been caused on account of the aforesaid provisions of law and consequently the order (Annexure P-11) cannot be sustained. On perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that there has been a complete misrepresentation of facts before this Court. It has been specifically averred in the reply that after the notice C.W.P.Nos.7367 of 2010 3 (Annexure P-11) had been served upon the petitioner and he had submitted a representation for dropping the abovesaid notice on 12.03.2010 which representation was duly considered and an order dated 13.05.2010 was passed, (placed on record Annexure R-2) rejecting his representation on the ground that he has earned adverse report of integrity doubtful during the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.07.2009 and that he was also facing punishment for taking a bribe of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner has not assailed the order dated 13.05.2010 and has also suppressed this fact from the Court. It is settled principle of law that a person who does not come to Court with clean hands, does not deserve any indulgence of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Ramjas Foundation and another versus Union of India and others 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 176 has held that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and such a person is not entitled to any relief. That apart even if the action of the respondent is to be assessed independently of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the petitioner, who has earned two ACRs of integrity doubtful and both in the near proximity to the time when he was scheduled for assessment for the purposes of retention in service, cannot claim leniency. The entire record as ought to have been seen does not wash of the effect of these two subsequent reports. The law on this subject is now settled that even a solitary report regarding integrity doubtful can be considered to be sufficient to retire a person compulsorily but if such reports of integrity doubtful are so proximate to the period of consideration of an employee to be retained in service then in the considered opinion of this Court they apply with greater ferocity and the C.W.P.Nos.7367 of 2010 4 petitioner, therefore, cannot escape the consequences which have rightly been inflicted upon him. Considering the second petition bearing No.5445 of 2011, wherein the petitioner assails that the adverse remarks granted to him do not deserve to be sustained for the reasons which have been given in para No.4 of the petition in which it has been averred that the petitioner requested the concerned SHO to grant him relief to enable him to attend the ring ceremony of his daughter which was fixed for 14.03.2009 but since leave was not granted to him, the petitioner after making an entry in the Roznamcha vide D.D.No.10 dated 14.03.2009 met the higher office in this regard and on account of this SHO, Police Station Bhondsi got annoyed and was instrumental in getting the adverse ACR recorded is also without any substance. In short, the petition alleges malafides against the SHO of Police Station Bhondsi, functioning as such at that point of time. However, perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has not impleaded the said officer by name and as such these allegations can not be looked into. There is no other material which has been placed before this Court regarding the unsustainability of the adverse entry in the petition and for the reasons which has been stated above where the petitioner had earned two dubious reports, I am of the opinion that both the petitions are without any merit and are dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER ) November 18, 2011. JUDGE mamta