Mr. Permod Kohli. J. (Oral) - Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 10.4.1995 passed by the Govt. of Punjab for his compulsory retirement in public interest under clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, on the recommendations of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are noticed hereinafter.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a Sub Judge on 8.6.1972 on being selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission. He was granted selection grade on 22.8.1988. On promotion petitioner was posted as C.J.M at Ferozepur and thereafter as Senior Sub Judge at the same place. Petitioner was communicated adverse remarks for the year 1990-91. A representation filed by him dated 16.9.1991 was dismissed. He filed another representation dated 15.2.1993, the same was also rejected. Petitioner was also communicated adverse remarks in the year 1992 that his reputation is not good. He represented against these remarks and the High Court accepted the representation by expunging the remarks as conveyed to him vide Annexure P-12. However, final Gradation Report for the said year was kept as ‘B Satisfactory’. Petitioner again represented against the final grading and the same was also rejected vide letter dated 23.7.1994. With a view to assail the order of compulsory retirement petitioner has attempted to make certain allegations against some practising lawyers at Ferozepur, the then superior officers (Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge & District & Sessions Judge) and also alleged bias against some of the then Hon’ble High Court Judges. However, except one Hon’ble Judge no other person has been impleaded as a party.

3. In so far the respondent no.3 (the then High Court Judge) is concerned, the allegations are that the petitioner decided a case titled as Ripudaman Kaur Vs. Union of India against the plaintiff, who happens to be the relation of the Hon’ble Judge. Judgement of the petitioner was, however, set aside by the appellate court and a Regular Second Appeal also came to be dismissed by the High Court and the judgement of the First Appellate Court has attained finality. Petitioner has also referred to another criminal complaint titled as K.K. Bhandari Vs. Dr. K.J. Bhatia for which he took cognizance, who is also said to be relation of respondent no.3. Petitioner has also made certain averments against some practising Advocates and the clerks of Advocates, who were earlier court employees and on their dismissal from service they had started working as Advocates and Clerks in the courts. None of them are parties to this writ petition. Thus, the bald allegations without providing opportunity to the persons against whom allegations are made cannot be looked into. Even though, no formal reply has been filed, however, in reply to one of the misc. applications, the High Court has submitted a detailed reply to the writ petition. A.C.Rs of the entire service rendered by the petitioner have been disclosed. Gradings earned by the petitioner during his service are reproduced hereunder:-

“ Year Remarks

1972-73 B (Average/Satisfactory)

1973-74 B (Average/Satisfactory)

1974-75 B (Average/Satisfactory)

1975-76 B (Average/Satisfactory)

1976-77 B (Average/Satisfactory)

1977-78 B (Average/Satisfactory)

1978-79 B Plus (Good)

1979-80 B Plus (Good)

1980-81 B Plus (Good)

1981-82 B Plus (Good)

1982-83 B Plus (Good)

1983-84 B Plus (Good)

1984-85 B Plus (Good)

1985-86 B Plus (Good)

1986-87 B Plus (Good)

1987-88 B Plus (Good)

1988-89 B Plus (Good)

1989-90 B (Satisfactory)

1990-91 B (Satisfactory)

1991-92 B (Satisfactory)

1992-93 B (Satisfactory)

1993-94 B (Satisfactory)”

4. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner was considered for retention in service at the age of 55 years and looking to the entire service record he has been prematurely retired under clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules