CWP No.21134 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21134 of 2008 Date of decision 17.12.2008 Ex. Head Constable Rajinder Singh .....petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J. 1. By the order dated 28.6.2006 of the Director of General of Police, the second respondent, the petitioner, a constable, had been compulsorily retired on completion of 25 years of qualifying service. The petitioner seeks for judicial review two years later on the ground that the criminal case which had been instituted against him had ended in acquittal and the compulsory retirement imposed on the basis of the pendency of the criminal case ought to be susceptible to review on a subsequent event. 2. The petitioner had no other ground except to state that the adverse entries in his ACR were also recorded only by the fact of pendency of the criminal case and the adverse entries between the period i.e. 1.4.2003 to 25.4.2003, 5.8.2003 to 31.3.2004 as well as the entries for the period i.e. 1.4.2004 to 18.3.2005 were liable to be expunged. 3. It should be first borne in mind that compulsory retirement is itself not a form of punishment and is not in the enumerated form or categories of punishment under the Punjab Police Rules. No doubt the ACR pertaining to the petitioner records the fact of involvement of the petitioner CWP No.21134 of 2008 -2- in a case registered in FIR No.5 dated 31.1.2004 but the petitioner has not brought out anything on record to show that he had taken any effective steps to have the adverse entries expunged earlier. The entry reflected in FIR No.5 was a case registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner as well as the another Head Constable by name Satbir Singh. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the adverse entries had been even during the period when the petitioner was under suspension which showed the want of application of mind and the order of compulsory retirement was itself a non-speaking one. 4. The issue regarding the adverse entries have become irrelevant in view of the fact that petitioner is no longer in service after the compulsory retirement. The only ground that has to be examined is whether the order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary or whether it has been passed in violation of the procedure established under the relevant rules. It is seen that the case of offence of corruption considered the fact that there had been some missing links in the prosecution and gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. The acquittal in criminal itself is not a justifying circumstance to take a different view when the administration considered the question of compulsory retirement in public interest. There is nothing on material to establish that there were any malafides attendant in considering the issue of a compulsory retirement. This Court is not a Court of appeal against the authority that visits its subordinate with compulsory retirement in public interest. 5. Having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in proceedings relating to compulsory retirement and in the absence of any material that the decisional process was afflicted by any vitiating circumstance we decline to CWP No.21134 of 2008 -3- interfere with either adverse entries in the ACR's or the order of compulsory retirement. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) JUDGE ( K. KANNAN) JUDGE 17.12.2008. A. Kaundal