IMPORTANT POINTS
Compulsory retirement becomes punishment if by any incorporation or some reference or otherwise some stigma is attached to the order of compulsory retirement.
Entire service record of an employee including disciplinary proceedings, personal records and the reputation has to be scrutinized to assess justification of his continuing in service.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The singular question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. [erstwhile, the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB)], the first appellant herein, compulsorily retiring the respondent on attaining the age of 55 years is in accordance with Punjab State Electricity Board Service (Premature Retirement) Regulation 1982 (for short “the Regulation”) is sustainable in law or is it vulnerable being ex facie stigmatic.

2. The factual score as depicted is that the respondent joined the services of the PSEB as a lineman on 6.2.1969. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 4.12.1973 and while holding the post of Junior Engineer in a disciplinary proceeding he was censured on 29.2.1988. In the year 1992 another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and he was visited with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect under Regulation 5(4) of Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulation, 1971. He was also visited with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on 5.8.1993 in another disciplinary proceeding.

3. As the factual matrix would unroll the respondent attained the age of 55 years on 19.4.2003, his date of birth being 20.04.1948. A High Empowered Integrity Committee (HEIC) was set up for screening the case of respondent for his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years. As per the regulations his case was considered by HEIC on 17.02.2004 and the committee after taking note of entire service record, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the punishment imposed, his inefficiency in service and the confidential reports from 1992-2003, recommended his case for premature retirement and accordingly an order dated 19.02.2004 was passed by the Chief Engineer.

4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.12902/2004 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh assailing the same on the fundamental ground that the order is punitive and stigmatic in character as it entails penal consequences and, hence, it was legally non-substantiable. The High Court reproduced the order of compulsory retirement, placed reliance on the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 3048 of 2000 titled R.K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Another, (2002) 10 SCC 590 and after quoting a passage from the said order opined that the case of the respondent is covered by the order passed by this Court, eventually treated the order to be stigmatic and quashed it.

5. We have heard Ms. Jayshree Anand, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that HEIC had perused all relevant records, mentioned the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed on the officials and appreciating the entire service record had recommended for passing of an order of compulsory retirement and there is nothing to suggest that the order is punitive or stigmatic and the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in R.K. Panjetha’s case and set aside the order of compulsory retirement which really cannot withstand scrutiny. It is her further submission that when such an order is passed in accordance with regulations it is purely a simple compulsory retirement on the basis of assessment after attaining the requisite age by an employee and in the absence of anything stated in the order, the High Court could not have treated the same as stained.

6. Ms. Palli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in her turn, would contend that when the order expressly uses certain kind of language from which it becomes clear that it is stigmatic and hence, it loses the flavour of compulsory retirement which is passed under the regulations and, therefore, the High Court is justified in treating the same as pu