Civil Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.07.2011 Ram Tirath ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. P.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner, who was initially recruited as Constable with the respondent was subsequently transferred to Ambala District and thereafter to Gurgaon district. He was promoted as Head Constable on 01.10.1995 and confirmed as such on 31.01.2003. The petitioner claims to have service record, which is 70% good and above besides having earned 28 commendation certificates. The petitioner was also promoted as ASI on 09.04.2003 and confirmed on the said post on on 31.08.2005. While serving as ASI, he has been compulsorily retired, which the petitioner has impugned through the present writ petition. As per the instructions governing grant of extension beyond 55 years of age, only those employees are allowed to continue in the service beyond 55 years, who have 70% good record and their integrity is not doubted during the last 10 years of service. Civil Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2010 The petitioner was served with the notice under Rule 3.26 (d) of Civil Service Rules and 9.18 (1) (c) of Punjab Police Rules for his compulsory retirement in public interest on completion of 55 years of age. The petitioner has, accordingly, approached this Court with the grievance that 70% record of his service is good and above and hence he could not have been compulsorily retired. The respondents have filed reply giving out the details about the punishment, which were awarded to the petitioner. As per the reply, the petitioner had been awarded following punishments:- I) Punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with temporary effect for showing negligence in case FIR No. 447 dated 24.06.2007 u/s 460 IPC, 452 dated 28.06.07 u/s 498- A/406/506 IPC and 456 dated 02.07.07 u/s 498-A IPC Police Station Gurgaon vide OB No. 102 dated 4.2.09. II)Punishment of censure for his negligence in the investigation of case FIR No. 191 dated 06.05.08 u/s 380/452/506 IPC P.S. Sohna vide order dated 27.06.09. III)Punishment of stoppage of one future increment with temporary effect for tempering the index of case FIR No. 447 dated 24.06.2007 u/s 460 IPC, 452 dated 28.06.07 u/s 498- A/406/506 IPC and 456 dated 02.07.07 u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC P.S. City Gurgaon by applying fluid vide OB No. 288 dated 22.02.10. IV)Punishment of stoppage of one future increment with temporary effect vide order dated 12.04.10 for showing negligence in the investigation of case No. 376 dated 19.07.07 u/s 498-A and 406 IPC P.S. City Gurgaon. Civil Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2010 Besides it is mentioned that the petitioner had earned adverse Annual Confidential Reports during the period from 11.10.2009 to 31.03.2000 and from 27.05.2008 to 31.03.2009. It is stated that the entire service record of the petitioner has been examined carefully and finding his record to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner has not been retained beyond the age of 55 years in public interest. The case came up for hearing before this Court on 03.12.2010. After perusing the record, it was found that there was no adverse entry regarding integrity doubtful in any of the ACRs of the petitioner for the last 10 years. When asked to explain, the State counsel prayed for time to file an additional affidavit to indicate as to what had really weighed with the respondent to direct compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The respondents have now filed an additional affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, which reveals rather disturbing state of affairs. The petitioner was stated to be under currency of punishment. As per the affidavit, the petitioner was held guilty by National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi on 04.05.2000 in which penalty of ` 1,40,000/- as compensation was imposed on him and his other associates. The allegation in this regard as mentioned, would disclose that seven children aged 7 to 12 years belonging to Balmiki Community, while playing cricket inside the park Om Nagar Colony Gurgaon, near by the house of Daya Nand ASI had gone inside the compound of the house to retrieve a ball. On a report to the Police Post Khandsa Road, by the ASI, the children named Sandeep, Jatinder, Pawan, Rajender, Raju, Sunil Civil Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2010 and Sandeep were brought to the Police Post Khandsa Road. They were stripped naked, beaten up and were paraded in Om Nagar and Shanti Nagar areas in procession while their parents looked as helpless spectators of the procession following their children. The children were made to chant that their action of going into the compound to collect the ball was wrong and they were, thus, humiliated. They were taken again to the Om Nagar Park, made to knee down and were kicked and caned by the police. They were made to clean the surroundings of the police post. These acts on the part of ASI Daya Nand, HC Ram Tirath and Constable Raj Kumar established that they had abused their power against the children, who had not committed any offence. The children were, thus, humiliated, stripped naked and paraded in the localities and were beaten up, which conduct on the part of the police personnel, apart from a highly depraved, constituted gross violation of the human rights of the children. This blot was considered serious enough to term the service record of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory to deny him extension beyond 55 years of age in public interest. The principles behind retaining a person beyond 55 years of age, by now, are well settled. Such a decision is to be made upon the evaluation of entire service record of the concerned employee. The purpose is to weed out the dead wood from the service cadre. The manner in which the petitioner has behaved may not have been rightly reflected in his Annual Confidential Report. The conduct of the petitioner in behaving and treated the children in this manner is highly reprehensible. No person can be expected to behave in this manner with the children of tender age. Such a person certainly Civil Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2010 cannot be termed fit for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years of age. The reference and reliance by the counsel for the petitioner to any instructions would be meaningless. No instructions can foresee all situations and make a provision for every conceivable situation. It is the overall record of the service, which is required to be reviewed and decision is taken either to retain a person beyond 55 years of age or to deny his extension. It may have to be noticed that this is not by way of punishment any punitive action which would require consideration to examine its validity. It has been observed in Baikuntha Nath Das and another versus Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another AIR 1992 S.C. 1020 that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. As per this judgment, it is to be seen whether the Government has passed this order after forming the opinion that it would be in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. Such an order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. No doubt that opinion in such cases must be based on the material on record as otherwise it may amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power. In the present case, it is not possible to say that the order is passed without any material or it is not possible to say that the order is passed without any material or is not based on any evidence or that this decision is based on any collateral ground to make it look arbitrary. There is no case made out Civil Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2010 for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 06, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE