IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1332 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 02.12.2009 L/ASI Santosh Kumari No.600/JND. -----Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of compulsory retirement dated 23.7.2009. 2. Case of the appellant is that she was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police on 16.11.1979 and promoted as ASI on 1.9.2001. On a complaint filed by one Rameshwar, FIR No.525 dated 2.12.2008 under Section 406 IPC was registered against the appellant at Police Station City, Fatehabad. After investigation, cancellation report was filed, which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, vide order dated LPA No.1332 of 2009 19.9.2009. Adverse entry was recorded in the ACR of the appellant for the period from 23.12.2008 to 31.3.2009, doubting her honesty, integrity and reliability. This led to order of compulsory retirement. The appellant submitted a representation, which was rejected on 26.10.2009 on the ground that a departmental inquiry was held on the charge of her taking bribe of Rs.3,50,000/- from Rameshwar, which charge was established and on the basis of which, stoppage of three future annual increments was ordered by order dated 24.10.2009. 3. The ground raised in the petition is that for the period for which adverse ACR was given i.e. 23.12.2008 to 31.3.2009, there was no material adverse to the appellant and the complaint which led to registration of the FIR dated 2.12.2008, had no relevance, as after investigation, cancellation report was filed, which was accepted by the Court and thus, order of compulsory retirement was without any basis. Moreover, the said incident was prior to period for which adverse report was recorded. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the adverse remarks and order of punishment of forfeiture of three annual increments, on the basis of finding of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.3,50,000/-, could certainly be taken into consideration and thus, order of compulsory retirement was not liable to be interfered with. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 LPA No.1332 of 2009 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that FIR having been cancelled on the same charge on which adverse report for the period from 23.12.2008 to 31.3.2009 was given, the order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. It is well settled that compulsory retirement is not a punishment, though the same is also subject to judicial review, if the same is illegal, irrational or suffers from any procedural impropriety. If the order is bonafide, in accordance with the rules and if there is material on the basis of which subjective satisfaction can be sustained, no interference is called for. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. & another AIR 1954 SC 369, Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dikshitulu AIR 1979 SC 193, Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada AIR 1992 SC 1020 and State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel AIR 2001 SC 1109. 8. In the present case, as per ACR conveyed vide letter dated 8.7.2009, Annexure P-2, following adverse remarks have been recorded against the appellant:- “1. Honesty Doubtful 2. Rapport with the people and good behaviour with them Poor 3. Reliability Unreliable 4. General remarks Average 5. Classification of report Average” 3 LPA No.1332 of 2009 9. There is nothing to show that the said remarks are based only on the particular complaint referred to earlier. The said remarks have been recorded after general assessment of work of the appellant by her superiors and once honesty of the appellant was doubted and she was considered to be unreliable, this itself was sufficient material which could sustain the impugned order. 10. Rule 5.32 A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Rule 3.26 (d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I Part I and Rule 9.18(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of Haryana, provide for passing of order of compulsory retirement. The appellant had reached the age of 55 years. There is nothing to show that the order is malafide. Even though order of punishment dated 24.10.2009, based of findings of the Inquiry Officer, may not have been available at the time of passing of the impugned order, the departmental proceedings had already been initiated on 17.2.2009 and were pending. Filing of cancellation report by the investigating agency was no bar to the departmental proceedings. While exercising power of judicial review, the said order cannot be ignored even if the same was not basis of order of compulsory retirement. The adverse ACR was certainly available against the appellant, which could have been taken into account. 11. In view of above, no ground was made out for interference with the order of learned Single Judge. 4 LPA No.1332 of 2009 12. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 02, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 5