High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
ASI Hawa Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-13124-2006  RD-P&H 5168 (3 August 2006)
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
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
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
Moral dare and quickness in
bringing into light the
misdeeds of subordinates.
Fame regarding public
relations behavior with them Average
4 Personality and Below average
Interest in modern ways of
investigation and modern
Takes no interest
Disposal and investigation
Practical knowledge about
criminal law and procedure
Incapability if any and
whether the same has
brought to the notice of
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.