Best Lawyers in Chandigarh Court relief for AIG in extension case

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 1

In a major relief for Additional Inspector General (AIG) of Punjab Police Randhir Singh Uppal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not only asserted that his case for extension in service was prima facie rejected in a stigmatic manner, but also allowed him to continue in service at least till month end.

Appearing before Justice Arun Monga, Uppal’s counsel Sameer Sachdeva submitted the petitioner was “ignominiously inflicted with a chargesheet on October 29, instead of being given an honorable farewell” after putting in 33 years of dedicated and sincere service and earning exemplary ACRs.

Sachdeva added the chargesheet was “inflicted” at 8 pm, just two days prior to his superannuation, causing stigma on his otherwise unblemished career. He also drew Justice Monga’s attention to charges framed against the petitioner regarding alleged unauthorised absence from October 3, 2018, to February 24 and registration of an FIR against him in August 2018.

Sachdeva submitted the FIR was found to be frivolous and proceedings against the complainant had been initiated under Section 182 of the IPC. Pursuant to a preliminary investigation, a cancellation report, filed before the competent court, was accepted and the FIR dropped.

Referring to unauthorised leave, he contended the petitioner submitted his medical records before the competent authority to show he was bedridden and could not have joined duty as he was suffering from a prolapsed disc.

Sachdeva argued the chargesheet was issued in a mala fide manner merely to humiliate the petitioner and to negate his right to consideration for extension in service, which otherwise would have been accorded to him in accordance with instructions dated October 8, 2012.

Issuing a notice of motion to the state and other respondents, Justice Monga took note of the strong opposition by the state counsel on the ground that the petitioner’s case was adversely covered by another High Court judgment holding that a government servant had no right to continue beyond the age of superannuation as non-grant of extension did not carry stigma.

Justice Monga said the Bench was in agreement with the state counsel, but was prima facie of the view that the petitioner’s case for extension was rejected stigmatically. “It would have been another matter had he not been granted extension in public interest on attaining age of superannuation,” he said.

Justice Monga said it would be appropriate to give the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the chargesheet before taking a final decision on his extension of service.

Best Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court