CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17978 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17978 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 15, 2010 Sarup Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing order dated 25.8.2009, vide which he has been ordered to be compulsorily retired. He avers that this order is wrong and illegal and accordingly, prays that the same be set aside and he may be directed to be reinstated in service. The facts in brief are that a case under Sections 7/13/49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the Act’), was registered against the petitioner on 15.6.2005 while he was posted as A.S.I.,Police Station Hodal, District Faridabad. He was convicted for this offence on 8.10.2007 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years coupled with fine of Rs.5,000/- for an CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17978 of 2009 -2- offence under Section 7 of the Act. He further sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- upon his conviction under Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the same, which was admitted and sentence awarded to him was suspended on 5.11.2007. The Superintendent of Police, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of a report dated 22.8.2006, asking him to explain as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Head Constable. The petitioner had filed a reply that the findings by the Trial court as well as by the Enquiry officer, were perverse. The Superintendent of Police, thereafter, passed an order punishing the petitioner on 14.6.2009 directing his reversion to the post of Head Constable. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against this order is still pending. In the meantime, the case of the petitioner came due for consideration for retention in service beyond 25 years of service. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter Faridabad passed the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 directing compulsorily retirement of the petitioner by invoking provisions of Rule 5.32A(c) of Punjab Civil Services rules Volume II and Rule 3.26 (d) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 1 Part I read with Rule 9.18 of Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner has, accordingly, challenged the said order through this writ petition on the ground that for the same allegation he was reverted and has now been compulsorily retired. The second grievance made is that the officer, who has passed the said order, is not competent to do so. As per the petitioner, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17978 of 2009 -3- Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter Faridabad, is an officer of the rank of HPS and hence, is not competent to pass the order of compulsorily retirement. Mr. Rathee refers to the reply filed in this case and to a notification issued authorizing the Deputy Commissioner Police to exercise such powers to discharge the duty of equivalent Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, the State counsel would justify the impugned order so far as the objection in regard to competency of the officer, passing the impugned order is concerned. Mr. Rathee would also submit that the order of compulsorily retirement is not a punishment and is an order what has been passed only as the petitioner is not fit to be retained on completion of 25 years of service. Heard counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner against the order of his reversion is still pending and that he could not have been compulsorily retired without affording an opportunity of hearing and that too when he was already punished for the same allegation by ordering his reversion. The plea of the counsel for the petitioner is not well founded. Firstly, the order of compulsorily retirement is not a punitive order. The order of compulsorily retirement has been passed on the basis of assessment of the overall record of the petitioner, which could legally be taken into consideration to see whether he is fit to be retained on completion of 25 years of service or not. In view of his conviction and the sentence standing against him, further retention of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17978 of 2009 -4- the petitioner was not desirable, especially so in view of his conviction for an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At any rate, the respondents would be justified in taking that the petitioner was not fit to be continued in service upon conviction for an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. I am rather surprised at the view formed by the respondents by taking action against the petitioner, who is convicted for such a serious offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, containing allegation of bribery, but has been allowed to go almost scot free by ordering his compulsorily retirement. On the basis of conviction, a clear case for dismissal of the petitioner was made out. The petitioner stood convicted for an offence which is involving moral turpitude and such a serious one under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such a person cannot be permitted to continue in service of Force like Police. Rather somebody has been kind to the petitioner to order his compulsorily retirement. The conviction alone could have formed the basis of the dismissal of the petitioner and that is too without issuance of any further show cause notice or by following any principle of natural justice. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. November 15, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE