' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN). -This is an appeal against corn. Pulsory retirement. The charge against the appellant was that he broke the chain of command by making an application direct to the Inspector.. General of Police. The appellant had represented to the I.-G. P., through proper channel, against his transfer from the Traffic Police. Not getting a response be made another representation direct to the I.-G, P. On 14th February 1978. For this infringement of discipline, the appellant was charge-sheeted on 23rd February, 1978, and removed from service vide order dated 19th Apr% 1978 of the S. P. Headquarters. On appeal to the D. I.-G., the punishment was changed to compulsory retirement through a-der dated 19th August, 1978. A revision-cum-mercy petition to the I G. P. Was rejected on 30th January, 1979.
2. The parties were heard. The contention of the appellant is that direct access to the I.-G. P. Is provided vide circular letter dated 21st September, 1962 issued by the then I.-G. P. Which stated Inter alia that if no reply to a representation is received by a Police Officer within a fortnight he can make a direct reference to the I.-G. P. It was stated on behalf of the respondent Department that the circular letter concerned was a personal directive from the then L-G. P. And had no authority now, and that, in any case, according to Police Rules, Chapter 22, rule 53, any such direction becomes nullified after 5 years.
3. We have seen the rule quoted on behalf of the Police Department. It relates to "standing orders" in respect of the functioning of a police station, whereas the circular letter of the 1.-0. P. Shown to us covers the whole Police Department including senior and subordinate officers. Even if the circular letter had lost its validity with the departure of the then I.-G. P., the appellant had no means of knowing this and his bona fides in this respect need not be questioned. We are convinced that compulsory retirement is a harsh punishment for a solitary act which involved a direct representation to the I.-G. P., particularly in view of the protection to this act which the former I.-Q.
P.'s A circular letter makes available to the appellant. The appellant has put In more than 24 years in service and his performance otherwise has not in any way been made the cause of his retirement. We are inclined, therefore, to accept the appeal and consequently quash the impugned orders dated 19th April, 1978, 19th August, 1978 and 30th January, 1979.