2006 (2) TMI 636 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether rightly held by the High Court, that the Appellant was not entitled to any relief in view of his conduct as he suppressed material facts? Whether the Appellant had been coerced to apply for voluntary retirement?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acceptance of the appellant's offer for voluntary retirement.
2. Alleged withdrawal of the offer for voluntary retirement by the appellant.
3. Allegations of coercion and assault against the Fifth Respondent.
4. Procedural compliance under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
5. Allegations of bias against the Fifth Respondent.
6. Suppression of material facts by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the acceptance of the appellant's offer for voluntary retirement:
The appellant, a Head Constable in Haryana Police, submitted an application on 29.05.2000 expressing his intention to retire voluntarily effective from 31.08.2000. The application cited a disability due to a leg fracture as the reason for his retirement. The offer was accepted by an order dated 24.08.2000, permitting the appellant to proceed on voluntary retirement after the expiry of the notice period.

2. Alleged withdrawal of the offer for voluntary retirement by the appellant:
The appellant contended that he had withdrawn his offer for voluntary retirement on 24.08.2000 by filing an application forwarded to the Superintendent of Police by the Lines Officer. However, the High Court found that the appellant had submitted an affidavit on 01.09.2000, stating he had proceeded on voluntary retirement. The High Court concluded that the appellant had not effectively communicated the withdrawal of his retirement request, thus, the acceptance of his voluntary retirement stood valid.

3. Allegations of coercion and assault against the Fifth Respondent:
The appellant alleged that he was assaulted by the Fifth Respondent on 24.08.2000, who forcibly obtained an acknowledgment from him on the order of retirement. The Fifth Respondent denied these allegations, asserting that the appellant's application for voluntary retirement was processed in accordance with the rules. The High Court rejected the appellant's claims of coercion, finding no substantive evidence to support the allegations.

4. Procedural compliance under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934:
The appellant argued that the Lines Officer should have made an entry in the requisite register upon receiving the withdrawal application as per clause 12.55 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, noting that if the appellant had taken back his application after submitting it to the Lines Officer, no entry in the register was required. Moreover, this issue was not raised in the writ petition or during the High Court proceedings, and thus could not be entertained for the first time at this stage.

5. Allegations of bias against the Fifth Respondent:
The appellant claimed that the Fifth Respondent was biased. However, the Supreme Court noted that such allegations were only raised in the grounds of the writ petition and were not verified in accordance with the writ rules. The Fifth Respondent denied these allegations in his affidavit. The High Court, relying on the affidavit evidence, found no merit in the appellant's claims of bias.

6. Suppression of material facts by the appellant:
The High Court observed that the appellant had suppressed material facts, including the affidavit dated 01.09.2000, wherein he confirmed his voluntary retirement. The High Court concluded that the appellant had attempted to manipulate the official record to obtain a favorable order. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's findings, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct disqualified him from any relief.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the withdrawal of his voluntary retirement, allegations of coercion, procedural non-compliance, and bias. The appellant's suppression of material facts further undermined his case.

← Previous Next →