Important Point
Before the decision to retire a Government servant prematurely is taken, the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well.

Headnote:Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975-Rules 3(1)(b), 4 and 5-Premature retirement-Respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, prematurely retired on completing 25 years of qualifying service in public interest being dishonest and of shady character-Civil suit for quashing the order-Order upset but respondent denied salary for certain period-Two cross appeals to Supreme Court-Two adverse entries after promotion of respondent were not communicated-Order of premature retirement was set aside on this ground-Whether correct ? (No)-Appeal of State allowed and that of employee dismissed - Case Law discussed.
       Held : The facts in the present case are quite similar to that in Union of India v. V.P. Seth, AIR 1994 SC 1261. Here also the only ground on which the order prematurely retiring Gurdas Singh was set aside was that two adverse entries after his promotion from the rank of Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Sub-Inspector were not communicated to him and earlier adverse entries could not be taken into account because even when those existed Gurdas Singh had earned his promotion. It is not necessary for us to again reiterate the principles where the Court will interfere in the order of premature retirement of an employee as these have been accurately set down by various pronouncements of this Court and particularly in Baikund Nath Das case. Before the decision to retire a Government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entires as well. (Para 12)
       We are, therefore, of the view that the suit filed by Gurdas Singh had no merit and the issue whether order dated September 3, 1987 of his premature retirement and that dated November 18, 1987 dismissing the appeal as illegal and void was wrongly decided in his favour. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the State of Punjab and dismiss the suit filed by Gurdas Singh. In consequence appeal filed by Gurdas Singh is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 12)

Judgment

Wadhwa, J.-These are two cross appeals, both against two separate judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court arising out of a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur passed in appeal filed by the State of Punjab and also by Gurdas Singh. The judgment of the High Court in the appeal of the State of Punjab is dated January 25, 1991 and that in the appeal of Gurdas Singh, it is dated March 3, 1991. Both the appeals were dismissed by the High Court in limine.

2. Gurdas Singh, respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2978 of 1991 was recruited as Constable in 1961 in the Punjab Police. In 1976 he was promoted as Asstt. Sub-Inspector and in 1984 as Sub-Inspector. By order dated September 3, 1987 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, passed in pursuance to Rule 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, he was prematurely retired from the service. At that time he was holding substantive rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and had completed 25 years of qualifying service as on February 3, 1986. This order reads as under :-

“Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur

Order

Whereas you, Shri Gurdas Singh, Sub Inspector of Police No. 1151/Jull of this district, have completed 25 years qualifying service on 3.2.1986.

2. And whereas on consideration of your record I am of the opinion that it is in public interest to retire you from service prematurely.

3. Now, therefore, in pursuance of Rule 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 it is ordered that you will retire from service with effect from 3rd September, 1987 afternoon.

4. You are further informed that you will be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of your pay and allowances at the same rates on which you are drawing immediately before the date of retirement in lieu of three months notice period.

Sd/-

Sr. Superintendent of Police

Gurdaspur 3.9.87"

Gurdas Singh filed appeal under the relevant service rules against the order prematurely retiring him from service but the same was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt. by order dated November 18, 1987. The relevant portion of the order in appeal reads as under :-

“2. I have considered his representation alongwith the premature retirement papers and also examined his service record. The representationist came to be adversely commented upon in his ACRs for the period from 1.4.78 to 30.9.78, 1.4.79 to 30.9.79, 18.6.84 to 30.9.84 and 18.6.84 to 31.3.85 by different Reporting Officer for being dishonest and of shady character. I have examined the pleas put forth by the representationist, which are not convincing and are vague. I am satisfied that he was rightly retired prematurely. In view of the above discussion, I hereby reject his representation.”

3. Thereafter Gurdas Singh filed a civil suit on February 25, 1988 challenging his premature retirement from the service and for quashing the orders dated September 3, 1987 and that dated November 18,1987 being illegal and void. The suit was decreed in favour of Gurdas Singh by judgment dated June 14, 1989 of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Gurdaspur. The State of Punjab appealed against that judgment and decree. By Judgment dated August 10, 1990 Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissed the appeal. He, however, held that Gurdas Singh, plaintiff, had succeeded on ultra-technical point on the failure of the defendants to produce proof of their having conveyed to him two adverse entries. It was, therefore, directed that Gurdas Singh would not get any arrears of pay w.e.f. September 3, 1987 to June 14, 1989 when his suit was decreed by the trial Court. Both the State of Punjab and Gurdas Singh filed appeals in the High Court. While the appeal of the State of Punjab was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated January 25, 1991, that filed by Gurdas Singh was dismissed by a judgment dated March 6, 1991. State of Punjab is aggriev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 420

Important PointBefore the decision to retire a Government servant prematurely is taken, the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well.

Cases Referred (4)

Important Point
Before the decision to retire a Government servant prematurely is taken, the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well.