128

2023:PHHC:127420

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Regular Second Appeal No. 4751 of 2018

Date of Decision: 03.10.2023

Brahmanand

... Appellant(s)

Versus

Haryana Roadways

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. U.K.Agnihotri and Ms. Anshul Agnihotri, Advocates

for the appellant(s).

Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General,

Haryana.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana

and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab

Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi

(Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2.

The correctness of the concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by

both the Courts below, is assailed in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff.

3.

The plaintiff retired on attaining the age of 55 years. He

challenged the correctness of the aforesaid order by filing a civil suit. While

defending the suit, the defendants submitted that numerous complaints were

received against the appellant and many cases were pending against him.

Moreover, he was found guilty of embezzlement of the amount. Thus, both

the Courts below have dismissed the suit.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2023.10.06 10:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:127420

Regular Second Appeal No. 4751 of 2018

2

4.

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and

with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

5.

The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that

most of the Annual Confidential Reports for the last five years before the

date of order are “good”, therefore, the order retiring the appellant is not

sustainable.

6.

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the

respondent submits that the appellant’s record for the last ten years was

examined and it was not found good even upto the extent of 70%. The

learned counsel further submits that the appellant was found guilty of

embezzlement of the amount, therefore, this Court should now interfere.

7.

This Court has considered the submissions. The order retiring

the appellant cannot be considered as a matter of punishment rather he

attained the age of superannuation. The State has refused to retain him in

service beyond the age of 55 years. The scope of interference in the

aforesaid order passed by the employer has been explained in Pyare Mohan

Lal v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2010) 10 SCC 693 and Central

Industrial Security Force vs. Head Constable (GD) Om Parkash (2022) 5

SCC 100. It has been held that the State is conferred with the enabling

power to remove the dead wood from the service and the employer is

entitled to make assessment on the basis of the entire service record. Such

order is amenable to interference in exercise of the powers of judicial review

only, if such order is the result of malafide or is patently arbitrary. In this

case, the appellant has failed to prove that the order refusing his extension

beyond the age of 55 years is patently arbitrary.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2023.10.06 10:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:127420

Regular Second Appeal No. 4751 of 2018

3

8.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to

interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts

below. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

(Anil Kshetarpal)

Judge

October 03, 2023

“DK”

Whether speaking/reasoned

:Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2023.10.06 10:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document