The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the entire service record and make an objective assessment before deciding on premature retirement in the public interest, as outlined in Rule 144 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Appellant-Hawa Singh Bhambhu has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) to challenge order dated 28.07.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby CWP No.7767 of 2020 filed by him has been dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts of the case as made out by the appellant are that initially, he was appointed on the post of Patwari in the year 1986 and was promoted as Kanungo on 28.11.2000. Thereafter, he was promoted as Naib Tehsildar w.e.f.28.10.2016 vide order dated 09.01.2017. He was prematurely retired vide order dated 01.04.2020 on attaining the age of 55 years w.e.f.22.07.2020 after giving three months' prior notice. As per case of the appellant, his service record was excellent and he was given promotions on the basis of his work and conduct. He was issued a charge sheet on 21.02.2018 on account of filing appeal with delay before this Court but subsequently he was exonerated vide order dated 18.04.2019. Thereafter, he was issued another charge sheet on 13.02.2018 on account of dereliction of duty for wrong registration of mutation in the year 2009 while he was working as Kanungo.

3. Said order dated 01.04.2020 of premature retirement was challenged in CWP No.7767 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 28.07.2020, which has been challenged in the present appeal.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the service record of the appellant was good /outstanding as not only he was graded as good, very good and outstanding but he was also given promotions to the higher posts. The incident of the year 2009 was made basis for retiring the appellant prematurely whereas it was not a case of moral turpitude reflecting the conduct of the appellant. Learned counsel also submits that an inadvertent mistake occurred while making entry in the mutation because of similar names. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order of premature retirement was passed in violation of Article 144 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2016'), which provides that an officer/ employee can only be retired prematurely on account of inefficiency after considering the entire service record. It is also the argument of learned senior counsel that the order of premature retirement is to be passed by considering the public interest in case, said employee or officer has lost efficacy or is considered as dead wood and for that purpose, the entire service record is to be seen. There was no allegation of corruption, dishonesty or infamous conduct of the appellant and single punishment cannot be made the basis for invoking Rule 144 of the Rules, 2016. At the end, learned senior counsel submits that the provisions of the Rules, 2016 and relevant facts have not been taken into consideration and the judgment passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside in this appeal.

5. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant faced disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 2016 in two different cases. He was issued a charge sheet on 21.02.2018 on account of negligence on his part for delay in filing appeal before this Court. Thereafter, the appellant was issued another charge sheet on 13.02.2018 and was charged with dereliction of duty on account of wrong registration of mutation in the year 2009 as appellant had shown Ramphal S/o Risala resident of Village Garhi Sisana as deceased in mutation No.3041 of Village Garhi Sisana on 23.06.2009 whereas said person was alive and death certificate of another Ramphal S/o Chandan, resident of Ward No.7, Kharkhoda was mentioned in the mutation. Learned State counsel further submits that the appointing/ competent authority was competent to retire any Government employee/ officer in case, he/she is inefficient or he has lost his utility while in servi