Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 1627
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Banarsi Lal
Versus
Director General-cum-inspector General Of Police, Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 5433 of 1984,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 7, 2007
Premature retirement cannot be justified solely on the basis of average reports or vague and indefinite remarks.
Headnote:
Premature Retirement - Punjab Civil Services - Rule 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 - The court discussed the application of Rule 3 of the Rules, citing precedents and emphasizing that premature retirement cannot be justified solely on the basis of average reports or vague and indefinite remarks. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to calculate and pay the financial benefits admissible to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the Punjab Police Force, was prematurely retired at the age of 50, despite having more than 25 years of qualifying service. The respondents cited adverse reports and punishments of censure to justify the premature retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the justifications provided by the respondents were insufficient to justify the premature retirement, emphasizing that mere one entry in the column of integrity being not satisfactory, without referring to any specific instance, is not enough to declare an employee as dead wood.
Issues: The main issue was whether the premature retirement of the petitioner was justified based on the adverse reports and punishments of censure cited by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that premature retirement cannot be justified solely on the basis of average reports or vague and indefinite remarks, citing precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The impugned order prematurely retiring the petitioner was quashed, and the respondents were directed to calculate and pay the financial benefits admissible to the petitioner treating him to be in service up to the age of 58 years.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The prayer made in this writ petition is for quashing of order dated July 3, 1984 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner was prematurely retired on completion of 50 years of age, who was also having more than 25 years of qualifying service. The order was passed in exercise of powers under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (for short "the Rules").
2. The pleaded facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined Punjab Police Force as Constable on August 1, 1950 after passing matriculation examination. He was promoted as Head Constable on November 1, 1975 and was allowed to cross efficiency bar vide order dated February 18, 1984 with effect from January 1, 1984. The claim of the petitioner is that during his entire service career, he was never subjected to departmental enquiry involving major punishment. The petitioner, relying on the order permitting him to cross efficiency bar, submitted that even if there was anything against the petitioner prior thereto, the same was wiped out. There was nothing in service record of the petitioner, which prompted the authorities for passing the impugned order prematurely retiring him at the age of 50 years.
3. In the written statement filed, respondents disputed the claim made by the petitioner stating therein that petitioner was awarded two punishments of censure in the years 1972 and 1980. The conduct of the petitioner as Head Constable was commented upon adversely in the Confidential Report for the period April 1, 1980 to September 30, 1980 and From September 12, 1981 to March 31, 1982. While screening his entire record at the age of 50 years, it was opined that petitioner should be retired compulsorily in public interest.
4. While reiterating the submissions made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while allowing the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar vide order dated February 18, 1984, his entire service record on that date had been considered and found to be in order. The order passed prematurely retiring the petitioner just after four months certainly is not sustainable as there was nothing against the petitioner during this period. He referred to and relied upon judgments of this Court in Chanwat Singh Patwari v. State of Haryana and another, 1990(2) SLR 301, Rameshwar Dutt v. State of Haryana and another, 1990(2) SLR 347, Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana and others, 1989(2) SLR 126, Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police v. The State of Punjab & others, 1988(2) Northern Legal Reports 176, Avtar Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1995(3) SCT 214 and Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and another, 1996(3) SCT 613 : (1996)5 Supreme Court Cases 103.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that merely crossing of efficiency bar does not mean that petitioners entire service record even prior to that is wiped out, when issue comes for his retention in service at the age of 50 years. He further submitted that in his ACR for the period from April 1, 1980 to September 30, 1980, it has been recorded that his reputation for honesty was not satisfactory. Similarly his devotion to duty was also recorded as unsatisfactory. It was further recorded that he is also in the habit of not joining the parades. Further remarks were recorded by the then D.S.P. to the following effect :-
"He was habitual absentee from Malkhana. Many cases failed for non-production of case property. Report sent vide No. 2139-M/DSP/P, dated 29.10.1980".
Similarly for the period from September 12, 1981 to March 31, 1982, it was recorded that his intelligence was below average though there was no complaint regard honesty, finding him to be not punctual, overall it was recorded that he was average type of Head Constable, which adverse remarks were directed to be conveyed. Further submitted that petitioner had mentioned number of two writ petitions in the In
