Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 February, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 13.01.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 06.02.2025
Shri Ram EASI No.854/FBD
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for the respondents.
*****
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.
By way of the instant intra-Court appeal, the appellant-writ
petitioner (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the appellant’) has laid challenge
to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 04.07.2019, dismissing
CWP No.13358 of 2019, preferred by him for seeking the issuance of a writ
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Inquiry Report dated 05.03.2014,
the order passed on 14.07.2014 to award him the punishment of stoppage of
two annual increments with permanent effect, the order dated 08.03.2016
regarding modification of the above-referred punishment by reducing the
same to the stoppage of his one annual increment with permanent effect,
the order passed on 27.04.2016 qua the rejection of the revision-petition,
1 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -2-
the letters dated 24.02.2014 and 18.05.2015 regarding the recording of
adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports {for short ‘ACR(s)’},
the order passed on 24.11.2016 for rejecting his representation against the
afore-said adverse remarks in his ACR(s), the letter dated 24.12.2016, as
issued to inform him that his representation had been filed and the Notice
issued on 03.04.2019 to the effect that he would stand retired on attaining
the age of 55 years, with the further prayer for issuing a writ in the nature
of mandamus, for directing the respondents to retain him in the service
beyond the age of 55 years, till the date of his superannuation, with all the
consequential benefits including his promotion as the officiating Assistant
Sub Inspector and officiating Sub Inspector with effect from the date when
the officials, junior to him, had been so promoted.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in
the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellant had filed the above-
mentioned CWP, while averring that on 25.11.1987, he was recruited as a
Constable in the Haryana Police and was promoted as the officiating Head
Constable on 13.07.2004 and had, further, been promoted to the rank of the
Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2009. He was also awarded 24
Commendation Certificates and thus, he had an unblemished service record
to his credit but vide the order dated 12.07.2013, respondent No.4-Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Faridabad, ordered for conducting a
departmental inquiry against him, in respect of the allegations of his having
registered a false case under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 & 307 IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act vide FIR No.125 dated 12.08.2012 and having
2 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -3-
not returned the sum of Rs.1130/-, recovered during the personal search of
the accused as conducted at the time of arresting him. The Inquiry Officer
did not properly appreciate the evidence, brought on the record during the
inquiry proceedings and vide the Report dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure P-1),
he had wrongly held him (appellant) guilty for the delay of three months on
his part in sending the country made pistol (Katta), as recovered during the
investigation of the afore-said case, to the FSL for the examination thereof.
Then, respondent No.4 issued the Show Cause Notice dated 26.05.2014
(Annexure P-4) to him, proposing the punishment of his dismissal from
service. The appellant submitted his Reply (Annexure P-5) to the above-
referred Notice wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him.
However, consequent upon the transfer of the then Deputy Commissioner
of Police, i.e the Punishing Authority, a fresh Show Cause Notice dated
16.06.2014 (Annexure P-6) was issued to him by the new incumbent and
he again submitted his Reply (Annexure P-7) to the same.
3. Thereafter, vide the Order dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P-8) as
passed by respondent No.4, the appellant was awarded the punishment of the
stoppage of his two future annual increments with permanent effect and he
(appellant) moved a Representation/Appeal (Annexure P-9) against the same
to respondent No.3-Commissioner of Police, Faridabad who recorded his
Disagreement Note in respect of the punishment awarded to him (appellant)
vide Order Annexure P-8 and issued Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2014
(Annexure P-10-Colly) to him (appellant), proposing therein the punishment
of stoppage of his five future annual increments with permanent effect and
3 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -4-
the appellant submitted his Reply dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure P-11) thereto.
Again, due to the transfer of the then Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, his
successor issued/served a fresh Disagreement Note-cum-Show Cause Notice
dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure P-12) to the appellant and he filed his Reply
(Annexure P-13) to the same. Then, vide Order dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure
P-14), respondent No.3 reduced the punishment, as already awarded to the
appellant, to the stoppage of his one future annual increment with permanent
effect and filed the Show Cause Notice, as issued earlier qua the proposal of
the punishment of the stoppage of his five future annual increments. The
appellant moved a Representation (Annexure P-15) to respondent No.2-the
Director General of Police, against Order Annexure P-14 but vide the Order
dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure P-16), the same was rejected.
4. The appellant had, further, averred in the afore-mentioned
CWP that respondent No.4 recorded adverse remarks in his ACRs for the
periods from 07.08.2013 to 28.01.2014 and 11.06.2014 to 22.11.2014 and
conveyed the same to him vide the Memos (Annexures P-17 and P-19) as
issued on 24.02.2014 and 18.05.2015 respectively. The Representations,
filed by the appellant for seeking the expunction of the above-said adverse
remarks, were rejected by respondent No.3 vide the Order dated 24.11.2016
(Annexure P-20). The Appeal/Representation (Annexure P-21), preferred by
the appellant to respondent No.2 had also been filed, as conveyed to him
vide the letter issued on 24.12.2016 (Annexure P-22). Thereafter, respondent
No.4 issued Notice dated 03.04.2019, i.e Annexure P-24, (actually the order
for retiring the appellant on his attaining the age of 55 years while giving
4 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -5-
him three months’ notice and here-in-after to be referred as ‘the Order’), to
the appellant on the basis of the remarks, recorded in his ACR for the period
2013-14, regarding ‘his being Below Average/his integrity being doubtful’.
Learned Single Judge has dismissed the afore-said CWP vide the impugned
judgment, as already discussed in the opening para of this judgment.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned State counsel for the respondents in the instant appeal and have
also perused the file thoroughly.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his Report Annexure P-1, only
the allegation about the delay of more than three (03) months on the part of
the appellant in sending the country made pistol, as recovered during the
investigation of the above-mentioned case, to the FSL, had been proved
against him (appellant) and even the afore-said findings had been recorded
without any cogent and clinching material/evidence on the record, to prove
the above-described allegation and thus, Order Annexure P-14, awarding
the punishment of stoppage of one future annual increment of the appellant
with permanent effect and the Order Annexure P-16, passed for rejecting
the Representation, as moved by him against Order Annexure P-14, are not
sustainable. He has further contended that the adverse remarks, as recorded
by respondent No.4 in the ACR(s) of the appellant for the period 2013-14
regarding his grading as ‘Below Average and his integrity being doubtful’,
which were conveyed to him vide Memos Annexures P-17 and P-19, are
also erroneous as these have been recorded on the basis of the allegation
5 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -6-
qua the registration of the afore-referred false FIR/case by him whereas in
his Report Annexure P-1, the Inquiry Officer has nowhere reported that the
above-said allegation stood proved against him (appellant) and hence, the
afore-referred adverse remarks deserve to be expunged and resultantly, the
Order Annexure P-24, issued for retiring the appellant on his attaining the
age of 55 years, on the ground of the above-said adverse remarks, is also
liable to be quashed but learned Single Judge has not considered the afore-
discussed crucial and material aspects of the matter in the correct perspective
and has wrongly dismissed the above-mentioned CWP and it being so, the
impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside.
7. Per-contra, learned State counsel has argued that the appellant
had committed grave misconduct while discharging his official duty, by
registering the afore-said false criminal case and thus, it is explicit that the
Competent Authorities had rightly held him guilty vide the Inquiry Report
Annexure P-1 and had awarded the punishment to him vide Order Annexure
P-14 and had correctly recorded the above-referred adverse remarks in his
ACR(s) and had passed Order Annexure P-24 to retire him at the age of 55
years and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. As regards the challenge laid by the appellant to the Inquiry
Report Annexure P-1, the Order Annexure P-8 regarding the stoppage of
his two future annual increments with permanent effect, the Order Annexure
P-14 as passed for awarding him the punishment of stoppage of one future
annual increment with permanent effect and Order Annexure P-16 qua the
rejection of his Representation, we have carefully gone through the afore-
6 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -7-
mentioned Inquiry Report as well as the Orders passed by the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority and have noticed that the Inquiry
Officer had neither found the appellant to be guilty of registering the false
criminal case nor had held the allegation of having not returned the above-
referred amount of Rs.1,130/-, to have been proved against him and rather,
the only delinquency, which he (Inquiry Officer) has reported to be proved
against the appellant, is the laxity on his (appellant’s) part, in not sending
the afore-said country made pistol, as stated to have been recovered during
the investigation of the above-referred case, to the FSL for its examination,
within a reasonable time as it had been so sent there after a period of more
than three months and this delinquency had resulted in the imposition of
the punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments with permanent
effect, vide Order Annexure P-8 which had been reduced by the Appellate
Authority to stoppage of his one future annual increment with permanent
effect, vide the Order Annexure P-14.
9. The scope of interference in the departmental/disciplinary
proceedings is very limited. In Union of India vs P.Gunasekaran
2015(2) SCC 610, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has laid down various
guidelines as to when the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, in the matters pertaining to disciplinary
proceedings and has also discussed the circumstances wherein it (High
Court) shall not interfere in the same and has observed as under:-
“12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an7 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DBLPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -8-
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-
appreciating even the evidence before the inquiry officer.
The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary
authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of
first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall
not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The
High Court can only see whether:
(a) the inquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the inquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry, in case
8 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DBLPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -9-
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
The afore-cited verdict has, later-on, been approved by a three
Judges’ Bench of the Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force &
others vs Abrar Ali, 2017(4) SCC 507. In view of the above-discussed
position of law, we find ourselves unable to interfere with the findings
recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his Report Annexure P-1 and the Order
Annexure P-14, passed by the Appellate Authority for stopping one future
annual increment of the appellant with permanent effect and also the Order
Annexure P-16, regarding the rejection of the Representation, moved by
him to respondent No.2 and the same are, therefore, upheld. It will not be
out of place to mention here that in view of the Order Annexure P-14 as
passed by the Appellate Authority qua the reduction in punishment, Order
Annexure P-8, passed by the Punishing Authority, pales into insignificance.
10. So far as the prayer made by the appellant for expunging the
adverse remarks in his afore-referred ACR(s), as conveyed to him vide the
Memos Annexures P-17 & P-19 and to set-aside the Order Annexure P-20
passed by respondent No.3 regarding the rejection of his Representation
and the letter Annexure P-22, issued to inform him about the filing of the
9 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -10-
Representation moved by him to respondent No.2 and the Order Annexure
P-24 in respect of his retirement at the age of 55 years, is concerned, it is
pertinent to refer to the Memos Annexure P-17 & P-19 as had been issued
to him and the same read as under:-
" Annexure P-17
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, HQRS, FARIDABAD
No. 255/ST dated Faridabad 24.2.14
Subject:- Conveying of Adverse Remarks
Memo
The following defects have been reflected in
your confidential report for the period from 07.08.13 to
28.1.14
1. Integrity Doubtful
2. General Remarks Registered false case while
posted in PS.
You are advised to remove these defects, in
future.
E/ASI Shri Ram No.854/FBD
Sd-
Deputy Commissioner of Police
Hqrs, Faridabad.
Annexure P-19
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, HQRS, FARIDABAD
No. 532/ST dated Faridabad 18.5.15
Subject:- Conveying of Adverse Remarks
Memo
The following defects have been reflected in
your confidential report for the period from 11.06.14 to
22.11.14
1. Discipline Indiscipline
10 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -11-
2. General Remarks An Average EASI
Note:- Two annual increment stopped W.P.E. on 14.07.14
for registered a false case FIR No.125 dated 12.08.2012
u/s 148/149/323/307/506 & 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Sadar
B. Garh.
You are advised to remove these defects, in
future.
E/ASI Shri Ram No.854/FBD
Sd-
Deputy Commissioner of Police
Hqrs, Faridabad.”
11. From the above-quoted contents, it becomes crystal clear that
as per Memo Annexure P-17, the integrity of the appellant was recorded to
be doubtful on account of his having registered the false case and as shown
in Memo Annexure P-19, he had been graded as an Average/indisciplined
EASI, by specifically noting that his two annual increments were stopped
with permanent effect for registering the afore-said false FIR but in his
Report Annexure P-1, the Inquiry Officer has nowhere held the appellant to
be guilty of doing so, as observed earlier and has, rather, reported that the
Charge had already been framed in the above-mentioned case and therefore,
it was not the subject matter to be commented upon. Further, Annexure P-2
is the copy of the Charge framed against the accused in the afore-referred
case and Annexure P-3 is the copy of the order passed by this Court on
26.03.2014, dismissing CRR Nos.2035 and 3632 of 2013, as preferred by
the accused for seeking the quashing of Charge Annexure P-2 and in such
circumstances, there could be no valid reason or ground for recording the
above-said adverse remarks in the ACR(s) of the appellant.
12. To add to it, a perusal of Annexure P-25 (Colly), i.e the copies
of the Confidential Service Reports/Record of the appellant for the period
11 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -12-
from 18.06.2004 to 31.03.2018, supplied to him under the RTI Act, reveals
that except the afore-detailed adverse remarks, he has earned Good/Very
Good grading in his ACRs throughout during this period. Thus, it becomes
explicit that the ACRs of the appellant have consistently been good/very
good prior to the year 2013-14 and even thereafter, till his retirement. To
cap it all, the appellant had, undisputedly, joined the Haryana Police as a
Constable and had been promoted as the Head Constable and thereafter, as
the EASI. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in M. S. Bindra
vs Union of India, 1998(7) SCC 310 that “the judicial scrutiny of the order
imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is
either arbitrary or mala-fide or it is based on no evidence and while
evaluating the material, the authority should not altogether ignore the
reputation in which the officer was held till recently.” These observations
are fully applicable to the instant case and accordingly, we are satisfied that
the entry of the above-said adverse remarks in the ACR(s) of the appellant,
was clearly arbitrary and unjustified one. We, therefore, expunge the afore-
referred adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 2013-14 and
set-aside the Orders Annexures P-20 & P-22, passed regarding the rejection/
filing of the Representations, preferred by him for seeking the expunction of
the said adverse remarks. As a necessary corollary thereto, the Order dated
03.04.2019 (Annexure P-24), which has been passed on the sole ground/
basis of the above-mentioned adverse remarks, also stands quashed and the
appellant is held entitled to be deemed to have continued to serve till his
having attained the actual age of superannuation which is stated to have
been fixed as 58 years.
12 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -13-
13. Now, the question arises as to whether, consequent upon the
setting-aside/quashing of Order Annexure P-24 regarding his compulsory
retirement, the appellant would be entitled to the actual pay and allowances
also and to answer the same, it would be relevant to refer to the verdict as
handed down by the Apex Court in J.N. Srivastava vs Union of India &
another, 1998(9) SCC 559, which reads as under:-
“It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement
notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the
authority within the time fixed, before the date of
retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae
to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The
said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the
case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC
228. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court it
cannot be said that the appellant had no locus standi to
withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before
31-1-1990. It is to be noted that once the request for
cancellation of voluntary retirement was rejected by the
authority concerned on 26-12-1989 and when the
retirement came into effect on 31-1-1990, the appellant
had no choice but to give up the charge of the post
to avoid unnecessary complications. He, however,
approached the Tribunal with the main grievance
centering round the rejection of his request for withdrawal
of the voluntary retirement proposal. The Tribunal,
therefore, following the decision of this Court ought to
have granted him the relief. We accordingly, allow these
appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal as well as
the order of the authorities dated 26-12-1989 and directed
the respondents to treat the appellant to have validly
withdrawn his proposal for voluntary retirement with
effect from 31-1-1990. The net result of this order is that13 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DBLPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -14-
the appellant will have to be treated to be in service till
the date of his superannuation which is said to be
somewhere in 1994 when he completed 58 years of age.
The respondent-authorities will have to make good to the
appellant all monetary benefits by treating him to have
continuously worked till the date of his actual
superannuation in 1994. This entitles him to get all
arrears of salary and other emoluments including
increments and to get his pensionary benefits refixed
accordingly. However, this will have to be subject to
adjustment of any pension amount and other retirement
benefits already paid to the appellant in the meantime up
to the date of his actual superannuation. It was submitted
by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-authorities
that no back salary should be allowed to the appellant as
the appellant did not work and therefore, on the principle
of “no work, no pay”, this amount should not be given to
the appellant. This submission of learned Senior Counsel
does not bear scrutiny as the appellant was always ready
and willing to work but the respondents did not allow him
to work after 31-1-1990. The respondents are directed to
make available all the requisite monetary benefits to the
appellant as per the present order within a period of 8
weeks on the receipt of copy of this order at their end.
Office shall send the same to the respondents at the
earliest.”
In the light of the afore-quoted observations, it is held that the
appellant would be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including the
permissible retiral benefits and actual salary for the period during which
he was not allowed to perform his duties till he attained the actual age of
superannuation. His salary shall be calculated accordingly and the benefits,
which have already been given to him while treating him as having been
14 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017408-DB
LPA No.1296 of 2019 (O&M) -15-
retired in pursuance of the Order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-24), shall
be deducted from the above-said recalculated benefits. This exercise shall
be conducted and concluded within a period of three months henceforth,
failing which the appellant would be entitled to receive the interest @ 9%
per annum.
14. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, the impugned
judgment, as rendered by learned Single Judge is, hereby, partly set-aside
to the afore-mentioned extent and resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeal in
hand also stands partly allowed accordingly.
15. All the pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
06.02.2025
neetu/vs
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
15 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2025 23:52:22 :::
[ad_1]
Source link