CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12071 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 11, 2009 ASI Ram Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. N. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who has been compulsorily retired, has filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. He was enrolled as Constable on 6.5.1974 and was holding the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector, when he was ordered to be compulsorily retired. The petitioner had faced four separate enquiries, leading to award of punishments in addition to earning adverse remarks in two confidential reports. The first enquiry he faced was when the petitioner was posted at Adampur, where he was an Investigating Officer. He is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12071 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: alleged to have minimised the offences in an FIR registered by him. After enquiry, the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments, which on appeal, was reduced to stoppage of two increments. This was in the year 2005. He was made to face another enquiry in the year 2006. As Investigating Officer, the petitioner visited a house of accused Mahabir Singh, whom he called for joining investigation. One Head Constable Bhoop Singh thereafter approached the petitioner with a request that Mahabir Singh was his friend and, thus, asked him not to call Mahabir Singh to the Police Station. As per the allegation, said Bhoop Singh also misbehaved with the petitioner, about which he lodged a report with respondent No.4 i.e. Superintendent of Police of the District. For this allegation also, the petitioner was punished and his appeal was dismissed. The third incident enquired into against the petitioner was when he recorded a DDR against respondent No.5, a Head Constable. It was alleged against the petitioner that he had done so without any basis whereas the petitioner would allege that respondent No.5 is a Care Taker of Inspector General of Police and had, thus, ensured this charge and investigation, leading to punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. Appeal against this order was also dismissed. The petitioner faced yet another enquiry, fourth one, on an allegation made by one Smt.Raj Bala. It is alleged that the petitioner abused her and threatened her with dire consequences while under the influence of liquor. The petitioner would allege that Smt.Raj Bala had given this complaint on the asking of Mahabir, who was involved in the FIR. He would say that this complaint is false. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12071 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: The petitioner was subject to medico-legal examination and it was reported that he was smelling of liquor. Here also the petitioner was held guilty and awarded stoppage of one increment with permanent effect. Appeal against this order was also dismissed on 25.9.2007. In this background, adverse remarks have been endorsed in the confidential report of the petitioner, which the petitioner would allege is the doing of respondent No.5, who had mis-guided respondent No.6 in this regard. The petitioner, on the basis of these punishments and adverse remarks, has been compulsorily retired on 30.10.2008 and relieved on 19.3.2009. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition to impugn the order of his compulsorily retirement. The petitioner has primarily made two fold submissions before this Court. He would first contend that before holding the enquiry against him, it was incumbent upon the respondents to take permission from the District Magistrate in terms of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Haryana. As per this Rule, preliminary enquiry of investigation into complaint alleging commission of criminal offence by an enrolled police officer in connection with his relation with public, when established, a judicial prosecution should normally follow. Where Superintendent of Police proposed to proceed departmentally, the concurrence of District Magistrate is to be obtained. The petitioner apparently has not been proceeded against with the allegation that he had committed a criminal offence in connection with official relations with the public for which he was required to face a judicial prosecution. I have my doubt if the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the abovesaid Rules would apply. The ratio of law laid down in Delhi Administration and others Vs. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12071 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: Chanan Shah, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1108, Nand Nandan Sarup Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Patiala and others, AIR 1967 Punjab and Haryana 342, thus, apparently would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Second submission is on the ground that all these actions have been taken against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.5, who is a Caretaker of respondent No.6 and, thus, has ensured action against the petitioner. This is factual controversy and as such, can not be decided on the basis of bald assertions made in the petition, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, it appears that the petitioner has not filed appeal against the order of his compulsory retirement. Though the petitioner has averred that he has no remedy of appeal but he would have this remedy available to him. The petitioner, if so advised, may avail his remedy of appeal, if available. I see no justification to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 11,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE