ASI HAWA SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

ASI Hawa Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-13124-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5168 (3 August 2006)

CWP 13124 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 13124 of 2006

Date of decision 22 .8.2006

ASI Hawa Singh .. petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr.RK Rana , Advocate for the petitioner M.M.Kumar, J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 20.2.2006 (Annexure P.5) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service by exercising his powers under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana). The petitioner has been working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. A show cause notice was issued on 7.9.2005 under Rule 9.18(2) by confronting him his confidential record which reads as under:

1. He was warned in the departmental enquiry conducted against him on the allegation for committing irregularities in the inquest of Banta Ram while posted at PS Mullana vide SP/Ambala's order No. 216-55 dated 3.4.05.

4.11.2002 to Fame regarding public : No specific fame 31.3.2001 Relations behavior

with them

Interest in modern ways Takes less

of investigation and interest

modern police ways.

CWP 13124 of 2006 2

5.5.2001 to 31.3.2002

Honesty Doubtful

Moral dare and quickness in

bringing into light the

misdeeds of subordinates.

Normal

Fame regarding public

relations behavior with them Average

4 Personality and Below average

Interest in modern ways of

investigation and modern

police ways

Takes no interest

Disposal and investigation

ability

Below average

Practical knowledge about

criminal law and procedure

Average

Incapability if any and

whether the same has

brought to the notice of

concerned official

Habitually in keeping the case and

investigation pending without any

reason which makes his honesty

doubtful. Regarding this one sensor

motion, a warning and a show cause

notice has been issued.

Remarks A very irresponsible and negligent officer. During his tenure at Police

Station, Sector 2, Panchkula a

number of cases and investigations

were pending with him. For disposal

pending cases and investigations the

concerned officers time and again

issued written and oral instructions

but this official kept with him

unnecessarily and took no interest in

investigation of the same and did not

bothered of the orders of this office

and its higher officials. This official

is not capable for appointment

against any office of responsibility

2. He was awarded a punishment of Censure for not taking action for disposal of the Criminal cases inspite of the directions given by DSP Panchkula while posted at PP, Sector 2, PKL vide SP/PKL's order no. 2174/St dated 27.10.2001,

3. He was awarded a punishment of Censure for not CWP 13124 of 2006 3

completing case diaries in case FIR No. 323 dt. 9.8.2K u/s 420/406 IC, case FIR No. 371 dt. 8.9.2K u/s 420/406 IPC PS Sec.5 and case FIR No.179 dt. 27.5.2K U/s 408 IPC PS Sector 5 PKL while posted at PP Sec. 2, PKL inspite of the directions through SHO PS Kalka by ASP PKL vide SP/PKL's order no.514-17 St dt. 9.3.2002".

After considering his reply to the show cause notice and obtaining approval from the Government on 31.1.2006, the petitioner has been retired from service by respondent no.2.

A perusal of the service record of the petitioner would show that integrity and honesty of the petitioner has been considered doubtful for the period commencing from 5.5.2001 to 31.3.2002. Against column no. 8 it has again been observed that he habitually keep the cases pending without any reason which makes his honesty doubtful. He has been regarded as very irresponsible and negligent officer.

It is well settled that if an officer earns an entry of doubtful integrity then such an entry alone would be sufficient to retire him compulsorily. The afore-mentioned issue has been considered by us in detail in the case of Babu Lal v. State of Haryana and others ( CWP No.

11670 of 2006 decided on 8.8.2006). In that order, we had made detailed reference to the rules applicable to officials like the petitioner and also considered the parameters of public interest as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC 299. We have also considered the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik (1995) 6 SCC 442 and Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of CWP 13124 of 2006 4

Assam (2003) 4 SCC 59. Therefore, this case would not furnish any exception. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M.Kumar)

Judge

(M.M.S.Bedi )

22.8.2006 Judge

okg

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.