HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant joined service as a Clerk in the Civil Supplies Department of the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union ('PEPSU' for short) on September 2, 1949. He was a temporary employee and he was discharged from service on September 30, 1953. On February 22, 1954, he was again recruited as a clerk in the consolidation department of PEPSU. In course of time, he was promoted as senior clerk and came to be allocated to Punjab State on the merger of PEPSU with erstwhile Punjab State. The Deputy Commissioner of Bhatinda transferred the appellant and posted him as Assistant in his office after obtaining concurrennce of the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab with effect from January 1, 1962. On the reorganisation of Punjab State in 1966, the appellant came to be allocated to Punjab State. After declaration of national emergency, the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling thereto and with the previous approval of the Central Government under sub-sec. (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and sub-sec. (6) of the Sec. 82 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 framed Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 ( 'Premature Retirement Rules' for short). Rule 3 conferred power on the appropriate authority to order premature retirement of the Government servant governed by the rules. It reads as under:

(2.) A return was filed. on behalf of the respondents by the third respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, who has passed the impugned order. It was stated that the conduct of the applicant in the Year 1971-72 wits found unsatisfactory. His integrity was found doubtful. It was specifically contended that the appellant was prematurely retired from service on his completion of more than 25 years of service and the computation that he had completed 25 years of service was correct because the break in service from October 4, 1953 to February 21, 1954 was condoned by the PEPSU Government vide Revenue Department Letter No. RD-13(25)SS-/56-7101 dated June 28, 1956 and that once the break in service was condoned, the appellant on the date of premature retirement had completed 25 years of qualifying service. A bald statement was made that the power was exercised in public interest but the impugned order is wholly silent on this material point.

(3.) A Division Bench of the High Court rejected the writ petition observing that once the break in service from September, 1953 to February 21, 1954 was, condoned, the appellant had completed 25 years of service and after recording the statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the Memo No. XI IN XI/Misc. file/ 75-76/1618-19 dated January 1, 1976 issued by the Accounts Officer attached to the Office of the Accountant General, Punjab and addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer (c), Bhatinda stating therein that the service of the appellant for the period from October 1, 1953 to February 21, 1954 do not qualify for pension as service prior to the break was for a period less than five years which would not be given effect to and thereupon concluded that the pre-requisite for exercise of power under Rule 3(1)(a) was satisfied. Hench this appeal by special leave.