VED BHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Ved Bhushan, who was at the relevant time holding the post in PCMS-1 at TB Hospital, Patiala, and whose service tenure has been cut short by 8 years by virtue of giving him premature retirement vide impugned order, has come to this Court in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Before contentions of the petitioner are noticed, it would be useful to give the bare necessary facts and in particular the reports on which the impugned order came into being.

(2.) Born on 16th February, 1938, petitioner was selected and appointed to PCMS-II on 1.1.1964. He was promoted to PCMS-I on 29.7.1978 and was allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.8.1983. The positive case of the petitioner is that during his long service career spaning for about 25 years but for adverse remarks contained in his confidential report for the year 1980-81, his entire service career remained totally blotless and that he worked with utmost devotion to duty and with integrity. A perusal of' the adverse report, reference of which has been given above, would demonstrate that the officer who applied his mind opined that petitioner had doubtful integrity inasmuch as firstly, he was not honest in dealing with the medical reimbursement bills to the Government employees, secondly, he was dishonest in issuing certificates of sickness to the relatives of the prisoners and, thirdly, he had embezzled Government funds by claiming double T.A. bills. In case the aforesaid adverse remarks contained in the confidential report of the petitioner for the relevant year were to continue as such, he might not had much to say in this case even though it was a case of one report out of his entire service career, which as referred to above, was of about 25 years. But the positive stand of the petitioner which has been practically admitted by the respondent-State is that in so far as first item of the adverse remarks, as mentioned above, is concerned, the petitioner was tried by a court of competent jurisdiction under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and vide judgment recorded on that behalf on December 3, 1988 he was acquitted. His further contention, which again too is not much in dispute, is that with regard to other two matters, namely, the issue of medical certificates and T.A. bills, there was regular enquiry held against him and he was found to be absolutely innocent. So much so, the Government vide separate orders dated November 18, 1982 and September 1, 1986 had itself dropped the two charge-sheets. The record of the case further goes to reveal that on account of adverse report, reference of which has been given above, the petitioner was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar in PCMS in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-60-1700/75/2000 when the same was due i.e. in 1982 but on his representation after he was exonerated by the Government itself, he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.8.1983 vide orders dated July 8, 1988.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, on the aforesaid established facts forcefully contends that the premature retirement order that came into being vide Annexure P7 dated 6.6.1989 i.e. far after the petitioner was found totally innocent with regard to two items of the adverse remarks contained in the report for the year 1980-81 as also far after he was acquitted of criminal trial with regard to third item, subject matter of adverse remarks of the confidential report for the year 1980-81, is an outcome of complete non-application of mind and in fact is based upon material which was non-existent Mrs. Charu Tuli, learned A.A.G. Punjab controverts the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that petitioner was prematurely retired from service on attaining the age of 50 years under P.C.S. (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, on account of adverse remarks contained in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1980-81 inasmuch as the said remarks even held doubtful the reputation and honesty of the petitioner and were as such enough to justify the order as per Government instructions contained in Punjab Government Circular No. 16/42/78-2PP/7300 dated 22nd June, 1981 where it was clearly laid down that even single entry relating to doubtful integrity is sufficient for premature retirement. It would be significant to mention here that in reply to specific averments of the petitioner with regard to his having been acquitted with regard to one item and enquiries having been dropped, and the petitioner having been found innocent with regard to other two items as per confidential remarks contained in the report of the petitioner for the year 1980-81, the only reply that is forthcoming is that although it is submitted that the charge-sheet regarding issue of false medical certificates to the prisoners and claim of false T.A. were dropped, yet the charge of honesty still stood against the petitioner. It has been further averred in para 6 of the written statement that the petitioner was issuing fake prescription chits to help the employees in getting bogus medical reimbursement and for that reason sanction for his prosecution was issued vide F.I.R. No. 51 dated 10th September, 1982. The written statement in this case was filed on 6.3.1990. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit by virtue of which he brought on record the judgment passed by Shri P.S. Bajaj, P.C.S. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhatinda, perusal whereof shows that with regard to F.I.R. No. 51, reference of which has been given in para 6 of the written statement, petitioner was tried and acquitted on 20th January, 1990. It is thus clear from the facts reproduced above that whereas the petitioner has been exonerated and found totally innocent of the two items, with regard to third item as well, he was found to be innocent on one occasion prior to the order of premature retirement and he was found innocent with regard to other item after the order of premature retirement.