SUDARSHAN DEV ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while posted as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Government College, Narwana, Distt. Jind, was served with a Three Months' Notice-cum-Retirement Order under the provisions of Rule 5.32-A(C) of the Public Civil Services Rules, Volume-II read with Rule 3.36(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Vol, I, Part I (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') as applicable to the State of Haryana. The impugned order was passed in public interest on 13.2.89, copy of which is Annexure P-1 to the writ petition.

(2.) Brifely, the case of the petitioner is that he joined the respondent department as a Lecturer in the year 1971. He attained the age of 50 years on 8.12.1987 and as such he had completed about 16 years of service. The petitioner during the tenure of his service from 1978-79 to 1988-89 earned 10 Good Reports and one average report pertaining to the year 1983-84 was conveyed to him, which according to the petitioner being average in nature, cannot be treated as adverse in any manner. On the basis of this single adverse report, the Haryana Government has taken a decision to retire him pre-maturely in public interest though there is no justification for the same. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the so-called adverse report for the year 1983-84 in which his integrity was graded as 'below average' was recorded at the behest of some senior officers who became annoyed with the petitioner due to some personal reasons and not on account of petitioner's efficiency. Though the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 9.3.1989 against the impugned order of retirement, but no decision in the matter has been taken. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Hooda, Senior Advocate, that in the Confidential Report for the year 1983-84 the integrity of the petitioner was graded as 'below average'. As per plea raised by the learened counsel, there can be no grading about integrity like 'below average' as recorded in the ACR. One can either be honest or dishonest. It was vehemently argued that as per instructions of Government contained in letter No. 32/198/83-G.S.I. dated 16.8.1983, the cases of Class I or II officers, who are going to attain the age of 50 years are to be examined and only such officers whose 50% service records is found to be good or better category, are to be allowed to continue in service beyond 50 years whereas the case of the petitioner was considered on attaining the age of 52 years. Even thereafter the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. Had there been any doubt about his integrity, the respondent-department would not have allowed the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar.

(3.) On the contrary, the stand of the respondent-department is that according to the instructions contained in letter No. 4884-4-G.S.I.-74/22627 dated 24.9.1974, copy of which is Annexure R-1, that where the integrity of the employee concerned is involved, the entire service record is required to be considered for the purpose and the employee concerned cannot be retained in service after the age of 50 years against whom a doubt regarding integrity has been expressed at any stage during the whole period of service. In the light of the said instructions, the case of the petitioner was examined and it was observed that ACR for the year 1983-84 contains adverse remarks about his integrity. Accordingly, the case was put up before the officers' Committee and after examining the whole matter the Officers Committee decided that the petitioner should be retired from service. Thus he was served with the impugned notice of retirement under Rule 5-32-A(C) read with Rule 3.36(D) of the Rules vide order dated 16.2.1989, Annexure P-1 and as such there is no illegality in the same.