JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejecting a writ petition against an order of premature retirement on the attainment of the age of 50 years.

3. The challenge, however, is based on two principle counts - on the first it is the issue of malafides and on the second it is the uncommunicated adverse reports : undoubtedly both these counts are rather serious in nature and success in regard to any one of the counts would entitle the appellant herein to appropriate relief. Before however, embarking on to a detail discussion pertaining to the above-noted twin issues the factual backdrop ought to be adverted at this juncture.

3. The petitioner being a Chartered Accountant joined the Respondent Electricity Board as an Accounts Officer on 15th April, 1988 and was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer retrospectively with effect from 29th January, 1989 in pursuance of an order passed on 21st August, 1990. The Respondent No. 3 happens to be the Member, Finance and Accounts while the Respondent No. 4 the Chief Auditor of the Board. It is however, on record that both the above named two respondents have retired from the services of the Board. Whereas it is the grievance of the appellant that the appellant petitioner has been discriminated against Shri V.K. Verma under the machination of Shri T.S. Gujral being the Respondent No. 3 herein, the respondents contended that by reason of systematic failure to discharge his duties in a manner as was expected of the petitioner and there being no sign of any improvement at any stage later, question of any machination on the part of either of the Respondents named above, does not arise. A specific case as make out by the Appellant is that the petitioner has been regularly and successively victimised by Respondent-Board at the behest of Shri T.S. Gujral-Respondent No. 3 and Shri V.K. Verma - Respondent No. 4 herein. The petitioner contended that he has been ignored for promotion first as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer and thereafter as Chief Accounts Officer despite categorical directions issued by courts while proceeding to allow the writ petition instituted by the petitioner and it is this state of affairs which cannot but, as contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, be ascribed to be malafide on the part of the respondents which culminated in an order of pre-mature retirement in April, 1988. The respondent however disputed any victimisation or discrimination and in this perspective placed strong reliance on the Annual Confidential Roll of the appellant herein. For convenience sake, however, the Confidential Roll in a tabular form is set out herein below :-

Year Remarks Integrity

01.04.87 to 31.12.87 Good Honest

01.01.88 to 31.03.88 Average Honest

01.04.88 to 19.08.88 Average Honest

22.08.88 to 27.12.88 Average Honest

28.12.88 to 05.05.89 On earned leave

08.05.89 to .6.10.89 Average Good

12.10.89 to 31.03.90 Good Honest

30.04.90 to 31.03.91 Average Honest

01.04.90 to 31.03.92 Average Honest

01.4.92 to 31.03.93 Average Honest

Two increments ordered to be stopped with Future effect vide 0/0 No. 61/DSI/D-664 dated 21.1.94

01.04.93 to 07.07.93 Average Honest

13.07.93 to 31.03.94 Period of Reporting Officers less than three months/on earned leave.

01.04.94 to 02.10.94 Average Honest

03.10.94 to 31.03.95 Just Average Honest

26.06.95 to 31.12.95 Poor with As he is not adverse taking remarks (copy interest in of memo the office No. 3653 work, he dated 20.3.96 cannot