BRIJ MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appellant's petition made under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging validity of the Punjab Government's Order dated 19-3-80 retiring the appellant prematurely from service.

(2.) The appellant after having obtained 1st Class M. Sc. (Technology) degree from Banaras Hindu University in 1950 was awarded Gandhi Memorial Scholarship by the Govt. for study and training in France for a period of three years. On his return from abroad he was appointed as Superintendent Quality Marking Centre (Scientific Instruments) of the Government of Punjab. In 1963 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Technical). In 1968 he was promoted to the post of Joint Director (Industries), which post he continued to hold till he was prematurely retired by Government order dated 19th March, 1980 issued in exercise of power under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The appellant made a representation against the order of premature retirement to the Government but the same was rejected, thereupon the appellant challenged the validity of the Government order by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine by the High Court on August 5, 1981.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Government decision to retire the appellant prematurely was arbitrary and unreasonable as the appellant's service record has all along been good and there was no material before the appropriate authority on the basis of which the requisite opinion that the appellant's premature retirement was necessary in public interest, could be formed. He urged that the appellant had earned consistent good entries for the last 5 years, but the competent authority relied on some adverse entries of remote past to retire the appellant. Learned counsel further urged that appellant's representation against some of the adverse entries which had been considered against him was pending and the same had not been considered and disposed of. Those entries should not have been considered against the appellant. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State urged that the appellant's work and conduct was not satisfactory and the State Government having considered the overall service record of the appellant formed the requisite opinion bona fide that the appellant's premature retirement was necessary in public interest. In support of his contention he placed the service record before the Court and referred to a number of adverse entries earned by the appellant during his service career to which we shall make reference at a later stage.