GURNAM SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was prematurely retired while serving as Conductor with the Punjab State Electricity Board on 22.10.1983. He had accordingly impugned this order by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed on 26.09.1984. THE appellant had joined as a Driver on 13.09.1956 and subsequently was absorbed in Punjab State Electricity Board. It was claimed that his work and conduct was quite satisfactory.

(2.) THE appellant was served with a charge sheet alleging that he had caused loss to the Board Property. THE appellant pleads that the charge sheet was false. No decision was taken thereon but he was served a noticed on 22.07.1983 intimating that he is being prematurely retired w.e.f. 22.10.1983. THE impugned order accordingly was passed retiring the appellant prematurely from service on completion of 55 years of age.

(3.) THE suit filed by the appellant was dismissed against which he had filed 1st appeal. THE only argument which was raised before the First Appellate Court was that the order dated 22.10.1983 was not passed in public interest and that the record of the appellant was not considered while directing his premature retirement. THE First Appellate Court after considering these submissions found that the appellant himself had requested the Board that he was not keeping good health and unable to carry out the stressful work of driving. Reference was then made to main exhibits showing that the appellant was held responsible for misuse of Board's vehicle and that his annual grade increment was stopped with future effect. He was also not allowed to cross the efficiency bar on account of his bad performance. His Annual Confidential Reports were also put on record, which showed that there were adverse remarks regarding work and conduct. On the basis of this material and on account of the fact that the appellant himself was not keen to continue in service, the impugned order was sustained and the 1st appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by observing that the order of premature retirement was in the public interest. THE appellant had accordingly filed the present Appeal.