State of Punjab Vs. Arjan Lal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ranjit singh, j.1. this case apparently is an example of blatant misuse of power. an inspector of police was sent packing by directing his premature retirement by flouting all norms. his record at the time of passing the order was good/very good and there was no adverse entry. still he was prematurely retired by dig in arbitrary exercise of powers which would only reflect his bias, motive and spite. the facts as noticed hereinafter would clearly reveal that senior police officer, incharge of police range had been unfair in dealing with the respondent. it is rather unpalatable to notice that even the 1g, failed to correct the misuse of power and thereby became partner in allowing the illegality to perpetuate.2. respondent-plaintiff, arjan lal assumed charge as inspector police w.e.f. february, 1984 in ferozepur range. on 15.2.1984, all of sudden, he was served an order prematurely retiring him under the punjab civil services (premature retirement) rules, 1975. the monarchical command was issued by sh. r. syrangal, deputy inspector general of police, ferozepur range, ferozepur. the respondent-plaintiff was left with hardly any option but to assail this order by filing a suit. since he had failed in his appeal before the ig police, he also challenged the order passed by the inspector general of police dated 14.06.1984. plea was that these orders were illegal null and void. the suit filed by the respondent was decreed by sub judge, gurdaspur declaring that the impugned orders were illegal and not binding upon the respondent. court further directed that respondent-plaintiff would be deemed to be in service from the date of his premature retirement till the date of his actual retirement. trial court, however, denied pay to the respondent-plaintiff for the period, he had remained out of service by applying the principle of 'no work no pay'.3. the state as well as the respondent-plaintiff impugned the said order passed by the trial court. respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved against part of the order denying wages for the period he remained out of service. the first appellate court came to the rescue of the respondent-plaintiff and allowed his appeal but dismissed the appeal filed by the state. state has come up in this regular second appeal.4. an officer would misuse his powers and pass an arbitrary order. his superior would not check him and rather would go with him. the state would blindly support the officer and file appeal after appeal. court was thus keen to know the material the state would have to show for which the respondent-plaintiff could be justifiably dealt with in this manner. despite best efforts, state counsel could not disclose any reason nor could he show any material which would provide any semblance of justification to pass this order of premature retirement.5. the facts as noticed would show that respondent-plaintiff was promoted as sub inspector by inspector general of police on 25.10.1983, on the basis of his seniority, good record and efficient performance. his case was considered for retention beyond the age of 55 years on 29.04.1983. on the basis of his good service record and the commendation certificates in his favour, the respondent plaintiff was allowed to be retained in service up to 58 years of age. within a few months of his promotion, he became a dead wood though he was found fit for retention just a couple of months earlier. what else would be a reason except that he incurred some wrath of dig, r. syrangal, as is pleaded, which led to his premature retirement. where is any justification for passing this order. there is none on record. nothing could be pointed out from the evidence.6. though the respondent-plaintiff had pleaded that the dig did not have power to pass this order prematurely retiring him from service but this ground apparently was not hard pressed by him. this order was open to attack on number of grounds that there would hardly be a need to see if the dig had authority to pass this order. this order can only be termed as whimsical and cannot be sustained. it was passed by flouting all cannons of law and in utter disregard to fair play. plea that the order was not passed in bona fide exercise of powers and was not in public interest is well made out. the dig while directing premature retirement of the respondent-plaintiff obviously did not give any consideration to the record of the respondent plaintiff. in fact there would be no material on record, which could be formed the basis for passing this order. the plea that this order was passed mechanically due to spite and vengeance on the part of dig, is not much off the mark. it would appear so when it is noticed that the respondent-plaintiff had worked under the said dig just for a period of two months only when this order came to be passed. this period would not be even sufficient for making any assessment of work to write annual report yet the dig assessed him to be unfit for service. the dig had no regard to the fact that his superior had considered the respondent-plaintiff fit for retention in service, just a few months prior to passing of this order. the impugned order in fact went to nullify the order of retention passed by the ig. rules would provide that this order of retaining the respondent-plaintiff in service could not be reviewed and the impugned order was nothing short of review of an order passed by a superior officer by his junior.7. it can be noticed that the entire record upto the date of consideration of the respondent-plaintiff was good and very good. there were rather appreciative references in confidential reports of the respondent-plaintiff. he was referred as a 'robust and hard working officer' in more than one report. in one report he was described as intelligent, experienced, devoted to duty and sincere. it was further recorded in one of the report that he was very good in investigating the economic offences. still a decision was taken to prematurely retire him. it would defy any logical reasons. nothing could be shown to justify the order.8. the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is justified in making a serious grievance about the manner and conduct of the dig, in exercise his powers. this, as per counsel, is nothing but an abuse of powers. he prays that it should not be allowed to go unchecked.9. it is rightly observed by the first appellate court that once the decision was taken to retain the respondent-plaintiff in service till the completion of 58 years of age, the same was not open to review, even as per the instructions issued by the government itself. it is thus clear that even the instructions issued by the government were flouted with impunity. the officer has not conducted himself well and he conies out in very poor light. no viable submission could made before me. no substantial question of law could be pointed out which would require consideration. lower appellate court had dismissed the appeal filed by the state with costs and this cost was directed to be paid by dig r. syrangal. the state was given liberty to recover this cost from the officer. even this did not deter the state to file this second appeal. there is no justification in filing the appeal.10. there are two appeals listed for hearing. it is not understood as to why two appeals were filed on behalf of the state, to impugn the same judgment. these appeals not only deserved to be dismissed but would require to be dismissed with costs. it may need to be observed that the state machinery should not file appeals in mechanical manner. how could the state have decided to file appeal in such like case. there is virtually no ground, on which such an order can be justified. still the decision was taken to file this appeal. it would have been better if some corrective measures were taken against the officer rather than supporting him by filing the appeal. government should not shield such officer, who misuse their powers. the appeals are thus dismissed with the cost assessed