Civil Writ Petition No.584 of 2008 : 1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 17, 2009 Ram Karan ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was working as Head Constable at Jind at the relevant time, has filed this writ petition to impugn the order of his pre-mature retirement dated 24.12.2007 as well as two annual confidential reports containing remarks of his integrity being Civil Writ Petition No.584 of 2008 : 2: doubtful and other adverse remarks contained in the report. While the petitioner was posted at Police Station, City Jind, a case came to be registered against him on 7.8.2006 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 9.8.2006 after registration of this case. The suspension of the petitioner continued till 8.11.2007. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was found accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/-. While this so happened, annual confidential report on the petitioner for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 was initiated on 24.8.2006. In this report, the petitioner was termed as indisciplined, his integrity was recorded as doubtful and he was also referred as not reliable. Another report was initiated on the petitioner on 1.5.2007 for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. Here again, the petitioner was described as indisciplined and of indistinct integrity with his reliability being not good. As a general remark, it was mentioned that he was arrested in case FIR No.44 dated 7.8.2006, under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. There was yet another reported initiated on the petitioner from 1.4.2007 to 8.11.2007 where some adverse remarks were endorsed. This report, however, has been set-aside on the ground that for this period the petitioner was under suspension and as such was not entitled to be assessed for this period. Keeping in view these reports containing adverse remarks against the petitioner and also that he was involved in the FIR, a show cause notice was issued to him on 24.12.2007 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be compulsorily retired in terms of Rule 9.18 of Punjab Police Rules. In support of this notice, the reliance was placed on these two annual confidential Civil Writ Petition No.584 of 2008 : 3: reports for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 and 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 and also the criminal case which was pending trial against him. Reference to a punishment of censure awarded to the petitioner on 1.7.1982 is also made in the notice. The petitioner has impugned this show cause notice primarily on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings he has been acquitted of the criminal charge. In addition, the counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to order, Annexure P- 12 (placed on record through replication), whereby he has also been exonerated in a departmental enquiry held against him vide order dated 24.7.2008. In the reply filed, the action is justified on the ground that the adverse reports are independent of the criminal charge and these would in themselves be enough to sustain the order proposed to be made. Superintendent of Police against whom allegations of malafide are made has also filed a separate reply denying the allegations and justifying the remarks endorsed in the reports. The petitioner has not only challenged the show cause notice but has also impugned the two annual confidential reports initiated on him where some adverse remarks have been endorsed. The grievance of the petitioner is that both the annual confidential reports are because of registration of a case against him. To substantiate the same, the counsel would point out that the FIR against the petitioner was registered on 7.8.2006 and report, Annexure P-2, for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 was initiated on 24.8.2006. It is only because of this incident that the remarks have been made in the report. As per the petitioner, this report is clearly Civil Writ Petition No.584 of 2008 : 4: coloured by this incident. So far as report dated 1.5.2007 is concerned, this is clearly relatable to the registration of a case against him as this is so mentioned in the report. The petitioner would also say that this is also pertaining to a part of the period when he was under suspension. The second report which was initiated for the period while the petitioner was under suspension has itself been set-aside by the department. This fact, the counsel would highlight to say that the initiating officer was hostile to him and had gone to the extent of initiating a report during a period when he did not work. This, according to the petitioner, would show his mind set and his efforts to harm the petitioner. As per the counsel, this would be a pointer to the malafide on the part of officers initiating the report. Indeed the petitioner has made allegation of malafide against the then S.S.P. M.S.Malik, who has been impleaded as respondent and has filed reply denying the allegations. There is no need to go into the allegations of malafide or other submission made at this stage. The petitioner has only been issued a show cause notice. No order of compulsory retirement has so far been made. There is a change in fact situation as the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal offence alleged against him. He has also been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. These facts would need to be taken into consideration by the respondents before passing an order against the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this court at the time of issuance of a show cause notice. The further proceedings on the show cause notice were stayed by this court. Needless to mention that the final order is yet to be made. The petitioner is first required to raise all Civil Writ Petition No.584 of 2008 : 5: these pleas before the authorities concerned for them to pass any appropriate order. The petition at this stage appears premature. Respondents are duty bound to consider the pleas of the petitioner before passing any order of compulsory retirement. Since the matter is still to be finalised, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with direction to the respondents to re-consider the entire case in the light of changed situation. The petitioner would be at liberty to reply to the show cause notice bringing out that he has since been acquitted and also exonerated in the departmental enquiry. In addition, the petitioner would also be at liberty to challenge the annual confidential reports initiated on him on all the grounds including the one that this had taken colour from the FIR in which he has been acquitted. The respondents shall then consider the case in the light of the response given by the petitioner to the show cause notice and the further material that is placed before them by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. August 17, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE