Punjab and Haryana High Court restores CRPF officer’s honour 25 years after he was prematurely retired

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 25

Nearly 25 years after Deputy Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force was prematurely retired from service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the order after declaring it “arbitrary and illegal”.

Justice Alok Jain ruled “huge amount”, consequently to be paid to the petitioner’s family, would be recovered from the officer, who passed the impugned order dated March 12, 1999, only for the reason that he “did not bother to read the rule or the law and it is apparent that the same was colourable exercise of power”.

BENEFITS TO BE RE-FIXED

Petitioner’s pension, family pension after his demise, and other retirement benefits would be re-fixed accordingly, with any surplus amount to be paid to his family, the court orders

Justice Jain asserted petitioner Balraj Kohli had expired. “The petitioner’s honour is restored and he shall be considered to have been honourably retired from service without the stigma of the imposition of a major penalty”.

Justice Jain ruled the petitioner would be deemed to have remained in service until his superannuation, with promotions granted from the dates his peers were promoted. He would be entitled to receive full salary, including all allowances, with pay re-fixation up to his retirement.

The court further directed that his pension, family pension after his demise, and other retirement benefits would be re-fixed accordingly, with any surplus amount to be paid to his family.

Justice Jain asserted the authorities could only consider past five-year record before imposing premature retirement penalty. It could have been done after he attained the age of 50. But the petitioner had not attained the specified age when the impugned order was passed.

Justice Jain observed the matter had been pending for past 25 years. The petitioner was not only prematurely and compulsorily retired by virtue of the impugned order, but the same continued to be a stigma for him and his family.

The “fundamental rules” were abundantly clear regarding minimum age and the preceding five-year service record requirement. But no official was diligent enough to read and interpret the same and illegally passed the order “only because of the reason that there was no fear of accountability on the officials working in the department”.

Justice Jain asserted: “It is a high time that the courts should take a strict view against the officials who pass such disproportionate and arbitrary orders which demonstrates nothing but mala fide on their part by abusing the powers for setting their personal scores. The order was prejudiced, unreasonable and smells mala fide.”

Justice Jain added the officer purposefully did not read the 50-year condition. It was conveniently or purposefully ignored. As huge amount was to be paid out of the taxpayers’ money, the Bench recommended its recovery from the officer concerned.