CWP NO.5295 OF 1984 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: .9.2008 S.Gulzar Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The Director General-cum-Inspector …Respondents General of Police etc. CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for the respondents Permod Kohli, J. The petitioner has impugned order dated 7.7.1984 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur for premature retirement of the petitioner from service with effect from the date of passing of the order. Challenge to the impugned order is two fold- (1) that the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired by Senior Superintendent of Police, though his appointing authority at the relevant time was the Deputy Inspector General of Police and (2) that the petitioner crossed efficiency bar in the year 1983 and there was no adverse remark or complaint against him CWP NO.5295 OF 1984 :2: thereafter. I may briefly notice the facts of the present case. The petitioner joined as Constable on 5.12.1950. He was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1973. It is stated that the petitioner has earned as many as 16 commendation certificates and also several cash awards during his service tenure as there is no complaint of corruption or misbehavior against the petitioner. It is further alleged that in the year 1983, the petitioner crossed the efficiency bar. Thereafter the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired vide the impugned order dated 7.7.1984 in exercise of the powers under Rule 3 (i) (a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rule, 1975. It is also the case of the petitioner that representation was preferred against the aforesaid order before respondent no.2, but the same stands rejected on 10.9.1984. Another representation was preferred before respondent no.1 which was still pending at the time of filing of this petition. Mr.Hundal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India which prohibits the removal from service by an authority other than the appointing authority or the authority to whom such authority is subordinate. It is argued that in the present case, the petitioner was appointed as ASI by the DIGP whereas he has been removed from service prematurely by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. The respondents-State defended the action of the premature CWP NO.5295 OF 1984 :3: retirement of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner earned as many as five punishments and appeal preferred by him also stands rejected. It is also stated under the Rules, the appointing authority of the petitioner was Senior Superintendent of Police and thus he is competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement. In so far as the efficiency bar is concerned, it is admitted that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. However, on the total consideration of the service record of the petitioner, he was prematurely retired. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of argument, Mr. Hundal has admitted that under the Rules, Senior Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority of the petitioner in the rank of ASI. However, in fact petitioner was appointed by DIGP. This argument is, however, not supported by any documentary evidence placed on record as to who appointed the petitioner. Be that as it may, once it is admitted that under the Rules, the Senior Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority of the ASI, the settled proposition of law is that the action of compulsorily retirement can be taken by the appointing authority or to whom the appointing authority is subordinate. The State Government is a principal employer and it has the authority and jurisdiction to delegate the power to appoint to any subordinate authority/officer. The power to appoint the ASI has been conferred upon the Senior Superintendent of Police which fact is admitted even by the petitioner. DIGP is definitely an authority superior to the appointing authority and the mere fact that the superior CWP NO.5295 OF 1984 :4: authority has passed the order of appointment, it has not in any manner taken the jurisdiction and power of the appointing authority to make appointments. Senior Superintendent of Police being the appointing authority was competent to pass the impugned order, this view is fully supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh, (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 92. In this case also, the petitioner who was in the rank of Sub Inspector of Police was ordered to be prematurely retired by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur who was the appointing authority of the petitioner. I do not find any valid ground to hold that the order of premature retirement of the petitioner suffers from any illegality or want of authority on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The other ground to challenge the order is that the petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar in the year 1983 whereas after few months, he has been compulsorily retired. It is equally settled principle that for the purposes of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of Government Servant is required to be taken note of. In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner suffered as many as 5 punishments during his service career. This issue stands concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurdas Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations:- “11...... It is not necessary for us to again reiterate the principles where the Court will interfere in the order of premature retirement of CWP NO.5295 OF 1984 :5: an employee as these have been accurately set down by various pronouncements of this Court and particularly in Baikuntha Nath Das Case. Before the decision to retire a government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well.” In view of the settled legal position, the arguments of Mr.Hundal carry no weight. The authorities have rightly applied their mind. No mala fide has been alleged. I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE .9.2008 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to reporter or not:NO CWP NO.5295 OF 1984 :6: