IMPORTANT POINTS
Order of compulsory retirement if stigmatic in nature, would be bad in law.
Rule laying down State action causing civil or evil consequences should be scrupulously followed.
Non-compliance with guidelines issued by the Government amounts to malice in law and an order suffering from malice in law would be illegal and wholly unsustainable.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The core question, in this appeal, arising out of a judgment and order dated 17.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 10549 of 2004, is as to whether an order of compulsory retirement being a stigmatic one would be valid in law.

3. Appellant was directed to be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 years in terms of a circular letter dated 14.08.1981 laying down guidelines for compulsory retirement, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:

"(i) Although the entire service record of an employee has to be considered, premature retirement should not be ordered if during the last 5 years the work and conduct of the employee has been good or better than that.

(ii) Ordinarily, no retirement should be ordered within a period of one year preceding the date of superannuation of the Government employee.

(iii) If an adverse entry relating to integrity exists in the confidential reports during the 10 years preceding the review, or if after its recording there has been no change in the class, status or the post of the officer, that single entry should be considered sufficient for ordering premature retirement.

(iv) If the adverse report on integrity relates to the distant past or is more than 10 years old, the subsequent record of the employee should be scrutinized carefully. If the subsequent reports vouch-safe the integrity of the employee in unambiguous terms, the inference is that he has improved his conduct and it should not be necessary to order his premature retirement. A similar view can be taken if an employee has been promoted after the recording of the adverse remarks."

4. Admittedly, the said order of retirement dated 29.09.2003 was based on the aforementioned circular letter. It reads as under:

"Whereas Shri Swaran Singh Chand, UDC S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh presently working in the office of Sr.Xen, Focal Point Spl. Division, Ludhiana has attained the age of 55 years on 14.10.01 because his date of birth is 15-10-1946.

Whereas as per PSEB Services (Premature Retirement) Regulations, the case of Shri Swarn Singh Chand UDC was considered on 17.9.2003 by the High Empowered Integrity Committee (HEIC) which has been set up to screen the cases of non-gazetted employees of Central Zone for retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years. The Committee took note of ACRs, disciplinary Cases, personal record and his reputation. Report of disciplinary cases of above noted employee (as derived from his personal file) is as under :-

CE/Op/Central Zone, Ludhiana stopped one increment without future effect vide this office order 81 dated 5.2.96 in the case of charge sheet No.C-653 dated 30.5.95 issued to him for embezzlement of Boards Cash of Rs.3069/-from M/s Falcon Industry having A/C No.J537. The assessment of ACRs of the above official was scrutinized and observed that the following ACRs are below average with adverse remarks:

(1) 28.10.93 to 31.3.94 below average integrity doubtful with adverse remarks of the following nature

i) Trust worthy Not Good

ii) Habits Not Good

iii) Knowledge of work Not Good

iv) Knowledge of rules/Codes Less knowledge

v) Relations with Co-employees and other Sections of the office and with Public Not Good vi) Integrity Doubtful vii) Overall Assessment Below Average viii) Capable for next Promotion No (2) 1.4.94 to 20.10.94 Below Average with adverse of following nature : i) Control over subordinate employees No ii) Relations with employees & Public No iii) Knowledge of work No iv) Capable of next Promotion No v) Not Good in Office Work

5. Appellant indisputably preferred an appeal thereagainst. In the Memorandum of Appeal, he questioned the legality of the said order inter alia contending:

(i) Although a disciplinary proceeding for imposing major penalty had been initiated, a minor punishment was imposed without holding a departmental proceeding.

(ii) ACRs of the relevant period had been recorded within a period of 11 = mon