AMIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Amir Chand is aggrieved by the order dated Feb. 3,1987 by which he was ordered to be retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years. Copy of this order is at Annexure P.l. A perusal thereof shows that the order of premature retirement has been passed on the ground that he has not secured 70% good reports. In the writ petition it has been categorically averred that the petitioner has not been communicated a single adverse report. This averment in the writ petition has not been denied by filing any written statement.

(2.) Mr. Jaswant Singh, appearing for the respondents, prays for a short adjournment to enable him to file the reply. The writ petition has been filed on Oct. 24,1987. During the last four years, no written statement has been filed. There is no written occasion to accept the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent for adjournment. Even the record has not been produced to show as to how many good or adverse reports the petitioner had earned.

(3.) In this situation, there is no alternative but to accept the contention of the petitioner that his record of service is good and there is no adverse report in his service record. Even otherwise, assuming that the petitioner had secured average reports, he cannot be dubbed as dead wood which may need to be chopped off till his record is shown to be positively bad.