C.W.P No. 827 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 827 of 2009 Date of decision : March 16, 2009 ASI Sujan Singh No.102/GGN ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others. ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The contention of the petitioner in the present case is that even though no adverse remarks have ever been communicated to him during 30 years of service yet by the order dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No.3, he has been ordered to be compulsorily retired at the age of 55 years w.e.f 23.3.2009. This fact has not been disputed. However, as per the respondents the petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments on the allegation that he had accepted a bribe of Rs.3,000/- but C.W.P No. 827 of 2009 ::2:: for this period no entry could be made in his A.C.R as the competent authority had less than three months to evaluate his work and conduct. It is also the stand of the respondents that the petitioner has filed a civil suit challenging that punishment and in these circumstances till the decision of the Civil Court comes no definitive view can be taken. In my opinion, what is relevant in this case is the fact that even though the charge against the petitioner was of accepting bribe yet only minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. To my mind this prima facie reveals some mitigating factor. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the interest of justice would be met if respondent No.2-the Director General of Police Haryana takes a decision on the retention or otherwise of the petitioner. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision as aforesaid within a period of four weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that in case respondent No.2 decides to retain the petitioner in service, the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not be construed as a precedent since only a peculiar relief arising out of peculiar facts has been granted. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 16, 2009. JUDGE `kk'