LPA No. 1784 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1784 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 21 .2.2011 Constable Richhpal Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana etc. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Krishan Kumar ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 19.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner- appellant. It has been observed that the order has been passed in public interest and on the basis of record under Rule 9.18(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana). It has further been observed in the impugned judgement that acquittal in a criminal case would not have automatic effect of washing the remarks 'integrity doubtful' and that it would depend upon case to case. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to examine the report in respect of the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 which shows that the petitioner- appellant was in-disciplined and his integrity was doubtful and his reliability was considered to be average. In the column concerning 'general remarks', reference was made to pending LPA No. 1784 of 2010 2 FIR against the petitioner- appellant. The views of the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid entry reads as under: “ Can remarks endorsed in all the columns be said to be relatable to registration of a criminal case against the petitioner?. The petitioner is described as “In-disciplined soldier”. His reliability is termed as “average”. His integrity is referred to as “doubtful”. In the columns of general remarks, reference is made to the criminal case registered against him, which was then pending. Undoubtedly, the columns in the general remarks are clearly relatable to the registration of a criminal case and his acquittal would have definite effect on these remarks endorsed in the column of general remarks. Remarks regarding his discipline apparently are not relatable to the criminal case registered against him and so too would be the remarks endorsed in regard to his reliability. If the criminal case was the reason to term his reliability as “average”, then perhaps remarks would have been little more forthright and he would not have been, thus, assessed as average as regard to his reliability. Discipline also has got no relation with the commission of an offence on his part to an extent the remarks in the column of integrity may have had taken colour from the criminal case registered against him. It is, thus, not possible to say that the entire report for the year 2001-2002 would have to go on account of his acquittal of a criminal charge.” Apart from the above entry there are other reports which have been taken into account by the respondent. A bird eye view is available on the record which is under: “ 1. Awarded a punishment of 'Censure' on account of his absence on 23/24.5.81 at the time of roll call vide OB No. 1088/81. 2.Awarded a punishment of 15 days Drill on a complaint LPA No. 1784 of 2010 3 received against him for misbehaving with L/NK Jai Pal and demanding Rs. 10/- for his entrance in the train while on patrolling duty vide OB No.1338/85. 3.Awarded a punishment of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect in a departmental enquiry conducted against him for negligence on patrolling duty in train, vide OB No.443/93.” Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that once a finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that the remarks regarding integrity were not necessarily the result of a case FIR No. 65/ 2001 registered under Section 384/34 IPC P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin (Delhi) then it is not possible to hold that his remarks have been washed with his acquittal by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Even otherwise his overall record would show that the petitioner- appellant is a dead wood, inefficient and does not enjoy good reputation for integrity. The Courts are not to substitute their views if a decision by the reviewing authority has been taken on the basis of the record that the petitioner- appellant working on the post of Constable is not worthy of retention in service in larger public interest. Such an order is not a penal order. Therefore, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann ) 21.2.2011 Judge okg.