CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 Rakesh Roshan ….Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. G.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) whereby he was made to retire. 2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police Force as Constable on 11.03.1991. He was holding rank of Constable in 2017. Director General of Police, Punjab constituted a committee to scrutinize record of police officials who have completed 15, 20, 25, 30 or 35 years of service. A committee comprising SP (HQ), Pathankot and two Deputy Superintendents of Police scrutinized record of the petitioner and formed an opinion that his further continuation is not in the public interest and recommended to retire him. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot agreeing with the recommendation of the Committee ordered to retire the petitioner in terms of PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.18 21:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) -2- Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (in short “1975 Rules”). This Court vide order dated 09.05.2022 allowed writ petition on the ground that SSP Pathankot was not competent to pass order under Rule 9.18(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short “PPR”). The respondents were granted liberty to consider case of the petitioner afresh. Relevant extracts of order dated 09.05.2022 read as :- “ I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the respondent-State and find that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot in CWP No.22931 of 2017 and Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur in CWP No.22932 of 2017 would not be competent to pass order under Rule 9.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules and therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms.” 3. The respondent-State preferred application seeking recalling of order dated 09.05.2022 on the ground that petitioner has not been made to retire under Rule 9.18(2) of PPR whereas he has been retired under Rule 3 of 1975 Rules. Order dated 09.05.2022 was recalled. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is stigmatic in nature. The impugned order could be passed by appropriate authority which as per Rule 9.18(2) of PPR is Inspector General of Police, Punjab. The Senior Superintendent of Police was incompetent to pass impugned order, thus, it is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction. PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.18 21:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) -3- 5. On being confronted with the impugned order, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab expressed his inability to controvert the fact that it is stigmatic, thus, contrary to judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed by this Court in a bunch of petitions including CWP No. 2766 of 2025, titled as “Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others”. He further submits that petitioner was made to retire in terms of 1975 Rules. The impugned order was not passed in exercise of power conferred by Rule 9.18 (2) of PPR. 1975 Rules are having overriding effect, thus, 1975 Rules are applicable and 1934 Rules are inapplicable to instant case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. From the perusal of record, it comes out that Director General of Police, Punjab, vide letter dated 13.06.2017 directed jurisdictional authorities to scrutinize record of the officials. The respondent constituted a committee of three officers which scrutinized record of the petitioner. The Committee formed an opinion that petitioner should be made to retire. As per record, petitioner by the date of passing impugned order had already completed 26 years and 3 months service. He was made to retire on the ground that on nine occasions, he was found absent from duty. On all the occasions, he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect for the sake of increments. 8. The argument of petitioner that impugned order could be passed by Inspector General of Police is misconceived. He is relying upon Rule 9.18(2) of PPR which is inapplicable to instant case. The question of premature retirement on completion of qualifying service is governed by 1975 Rules. It is apt to mention here that Rule 5 of 1975 Rules provides that PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.18 21:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) -4- provision of these Rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other Rules for the time being in force. Rule 2(1) defines ‘appropriate authority’. Rule 3 empowers appropriate authority to pass order of premature retirement. Rules 2(1), 3 and 5 of 1975 Rules are reproduced as below:- “2.(1)“appropriate authority” means the authority which has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government employee is required or wants to retire or any other authority to which it is subordinate. 3. (1) Premature Retirement: (a) The appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, have the absolute right, by giving an employee prior notice in writing, to retire that employee on the date on which he completes twenty five years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. (b) The period of such notice shall not be less than three months: Provided that where at least three months' notice is not given or notice for a period less than three months is given, the employee shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances, at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the date of retirement, for a period of three months or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months. (2) Any Government employee may, after giving at least three months' previous notice in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service on the date on PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.18 21:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) -5- which he completes twenty-five years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that no employee under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the appropriate authority. (3) (a) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service. (b) The notice of voluntary retirement given under this sub-rule shall require acceptance by the appropriate authority. (c) Where the appropriate authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (4) The employee, who has elected to retire under sub- rule (2) or sub-rule (3) and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appropriate authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of the appropriate authority. Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. Note 1:- An employee may make a request, in writing, to the appropriate authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reasons therefore and such a request for the curtailment of the period of notice shall be considered on merit and if the appropriate authority is satisfied that such curtailment will not cause any administrative inconvenience it may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.18 21:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) -6- condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice period of three months." Note 2:- If an employee retires under sub-rule (2) or (3) above while he is on leave not due, without returning to duty, the retirement shall take effect from the date of commencement of the leave not due and the leave salary paid in respect of such leave shall be recovered as provided in rule 8.119 (d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. Note 3:- In compliance of the notice period of three months referred to in rule 3, the date of service of the notice and the date of its expiry shall be excluded. 5. Overriding effect: - The provisions of these rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other rules for the time being in force.” 9. From the perusal of above quoted Rule 3, it is evident that appropriate authority has absolute right to retire the employee on completion of 15, 20, 25, 30 or 35 years of service. 10. From the conjoint reading of the above-cited Rules, it is evident that 1975 Rules are overriding PPR to the extent of inconsistency. Rule 9.18 (2) of PPR is a general rule dealing with premature retirement whereas 1975 Rules are specific Rules and Rule 5 specifically provides that these Rules are having overriding effect. As per Rule 2(1) read with Rule 3 of 1975 Rules, the appointing authority has power to pass order of premature retirement. In the case of Constable, the appointing authority is Superintendent of Police PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.18 21:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 22931-2017(O&M) -7- and in the instant case, order has been passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, thus, there is no infirmity qua jurisdiction. 11. The State counsel has expressed his inability to controvert that impugned order is stigmatic in nature. This Court in Naresh Kumar (Supra) has clearly held that order of premature retirement on attaining a particular age cannot be stigmatic in nature. It is also apt to notice that petitioner was subjected to punishment on nine occasions and on all the occasions on account of absence from duty. His last absence from duty was during January’ 2010 to March’ 2010 and impugned order was passed in July’ 2017. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The petitioner shall be deemed to be reinstated with effect from tomorrow i.e. 19.08.2025. It is made clear that for the intervening period i.e. period from the date of premature retirement to date of reinstatement, the petitioner shall be entitled to pension, however, this period would be counted for other service/pensionary benefits. 13. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. 14. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 18.08.2025 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: Yes PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.18 21:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document