D.D. VERMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is Executive Engineer (Electrical), P.W.D. (B&R) Punjab, has challenged the order dated 23.6.1989 vide which he was ordered to be retired prematurely from the Government Service. The said order was passed in pursuance of rule 3(i)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 . The case of the petitioner is that he joined service as a Sectional Officer (Electrical) with the Punjab Government on 28.12.1959 and that in consideration of his good performance, he was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer with effect from 21.6.1966 in Punjab Service of Engineer Class-II. Subsequently, he was appointed in PSE Class-II with the approval of Punjab Public Service Commission on 30.11.1968. Thereafter, in consideration of his continuous good performance, the petitioner was placed in a higher selection grade of Rs. 1700-2000 with effect from 22.11.1978, vide Government Orders dated 2.11.1988. The petitioner was further promoted as Executive Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 16.10.1980 on one year's probation vide Government order dated 30.10.1980. The period of probation was successfully completed by the petitioner as is clear from Government order dated 13.5.1983. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioners, during more than 29 years of service put in by him, was conveyed four minor adverse reports for the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, copies of which are at Annexures P/4, P/5, P/6 and P/7. The petitioner filed a representation against the adverse remark for the year 1984-85 and the same was accepted. Accordingly, the adverse remarks were expunged vide letter dated 10.11.1986. The petitioner submitted representations against adverse entries for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, copies of which are at Annexures P/9, P/10 and P/11 but the same have not been decided till date. It was vehemently argued that on the overall good service record, the petitioner was permitted to cross efficiency bar as Executive Engineer vide order dated 4.11.1987. It was urged that the representation against the adverse remarks was still pending and despite that the respondents have passed the impugned order without taking into consideration his good service record. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent is that during the last ten years' service of the petitioner, the petitioner has five good, five average and three adverse reports for the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. The respondent State in view of para 4 of the Punjab Government Circular letter No. 520-2S-II-75/38581 dated 26.9.1975 has taken decision to retire the petitioner prematurely. In para 5 of the written statement, the respondent has admitted that the petitioner had submitted representations against adverse remarks for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and the same have not been disposed of.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have perused the paper book.

(3.) The respondents in para 5 of the written statement have categorically admitted that the petitioner submitted his representation against the adverse. remarks for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and the same were not disposed of at the time of passing of the orders of his premature retirement from Government Service.