Gujarat High Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement Order Of Former Police Officer Criticized For Alleged Investigation Lapses In Arms Act Case

The Gujarat High Court has overturned the order of compulsory retirement imposed on a former Police Officer, highlighting critical lapses in the disciplinary proceedings against him.

The division bench, comprising Justices A. S. Supehia and Mauna M Bhatt, ruled that the initiation of departmental proceedings based on trial court observations regarding an investigation into the Arms Act was misguided.

The division bench observed, “The Disciplinary Authority has presumed that the observations recorded in the judgment by the trial Court, are directed against the petitioner only, however as recorded hereinabove, we do not find that the trial Court has even whispered the name of either of the Investigation Officer and in such circumstances, without first initiating appropriate fact finding authority fixing the accountability of each of the investigating officer, the issuance of charge-sheet directly to the original petitioner singling him out, was uncalled for. Hence, in light of this glaring aspect, we find that the approach of the Disciplinary Authorities was biased,” the bench added.

Edwin Annett Singh began his career in the police service as a Police Sub-Inspector in 1965 and was promoted to Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1992. He retired on 31st August 2002. During his tenure as a Police Inspector at Vejalpur Police Station, Singh registered an FIR in February 1991 related to the possession of illegal arms based on forged licenses. Singh conducted part of the investigation before his transfer, after which one Shri V.K. Amliyar took over and filed a charge-sheet in September 1991, leading to a Criminal Case.

In 1995, the trial court acquitted all accused but criticized the investigation. This led to a departmental inquiry against Singh, who was held solely responsible for the investigation's shortcomings. Approaching his retirement, Singh was compulsorily retired, and his retirement benefits were withheld.

Aggrieved by this, Singh filed a writ petition in 2002. In 2004, a Single Judge allowed his petition, citing no merit in the case against Singh and delay in initiating the departmental inquiry. The State Government appealed, and the Division Bench in 2005 remanded the matter, leading to the Single Judge dismissing the petition in 2014. Singh then appealed this dismissal.

The High Court emphasized the importance of Singh's long service and the timeline of the disciplinary proceedings, highlighting that Singh was not found to be habitually committing misconduct.

The court pointed out, “While imposing the order of punishment, the most vital aspect, which the Respondents have ignored, is the tenure of service rendered by the original petitioner vis a vis the timeline in initiating and conducting the disciplinary proceedings. It is not pointed out to us that the petitioner was habitual in committing misconducts and any major or minor punishments were imposed upon him in the entire service tenure. The late petitioner had rendered 37 years of service.”

“The FIR was in fact registered by him in the year 1991. The judgment of the trial Court was rendered in 1995. After four years, the charge-sheet was issued to him on 31.07.1999 and he was to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.08.2002, however he has been compulsorily retired from the service by way of punishment on 20.06.2002 i.e. almost one and half month before the retirement, which has resulted in denial of his retirement benefits,” the Court added.

Furthermore, the Court stated that the impugned order of punishment did not refer to any specific provisions of the Rules under which it was passed.

“These are the relevant and vital aspects which were required to be kept in mind while imposing a harsh punishment wiping out the 37 years of service. The learned single judge should have also examined these factors before dismissing the writ petition,” the Court pointed out.

In light of this analysis, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgement and order of the single judge that confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement.

As a result, the order imposing compulsory retirement as a punishment was also quashed and set aside, allowing the Letters Patent Appeal and the writ petition.

The Court directed the respondent State to pay all consequential benefits to the appellant.

“The intervening two months period from the date of dismissal i.e. 20.06.2002 to actual date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2002 shall be treated as notional. The entire consequential benefits shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of judgement of this Court, failing which for further delay, the amount shall carry an interest of 12% per annum,” the Court ordered.

Case Title: EA Singh (Edwin Annett Singh) & Ors. Versus State Of Gujarat

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 90

Click Here To Read Judgement