PAWITTAR SINGH WALIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by Pawittar Singh Walia, impugning the order passed by the Punjab State respondent No. 1 on 30th September, 1981 (Copy Annexure P-4) retiring him prematurely from the post of Controller, Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab. Only the salit at facts as alleged in the Writ Petition which runs into several pages, need be noticed for the purpose of considering the controversy. The petitioner joined as Proof Reader (Class III) in the Government Press, Patiala (PEPSU) in July, 1950, and was promoted as In-charge Publications in February 1953. With effect from 1st March, 1959 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Controller (Class II) in the Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab, at Chandigarh. It is stated that subsequently the petitioner was promoted and appointed to the post of Controller in the said Department, with effect from May, 1973. In Para 4 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has reproduced the annual confidential reports which he earned during the period of 1967 to 1981. These reports are stated to be varying from average to outstanding during different years. The petitioner further disclosed that a simple warning was issued to him on 9th September, 1974, while he was working as a Deputy Controller in the Department. He also averred that in the year 1972, a case under Section 5 (2) (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him but by the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, dated 12th August, 1975, the case was consigned to Record Room being untraced. A material fact which has been alleged is that vide order, dated 1st September, 1981 (Copy Annexure P-l), the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1st May, 1981. The said order, however, recites that the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar without prejudice to the action which was under contemplation by the Government on the basis of some inquiries which were being conducted against him. The petitioner made a mention of some approbatory letters issued by the Government in appreciation of his good work.

(2.) MAKING a reference of the circumstances leading to his premature retirement, the petitioner alleged in the Writ Petition that after he attained the age of 55 years, his case was recommended for permitting him to continue but as Shri Tejinder Khanna, Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Punjab, Chandigarh, (respondent No. 2) was not very happy with him, he sent for the file from the Administrative Department and obtained the orders of the Chief Minister, prematurely retiring the petitioner. It is alleged that there was no application of mind on the part of the respondents in passing this" order. In the later part of the Writ Petition, a reference is again made to respondent No. 2 who was working as Administrative Secretary of the petitioner's Department. The petitioner averred in the Writ Petition that "the reason for the displeasure of Shri Tejinder Khanna is best known to him.

(3.) SEPARATE written statements were filed by the State of Punjab-respondent No. 1 and Shri Tejinder Khanna, respondent No. 2. In the reply on behalf of the State Government, some of the facts in regard to the service career of the petitioner were admitted as correct with suitable variations, wherever necessary. It was, however, admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Controller, Printing and Stationery Department with effect from 25th May, 1973 in relaxation of the Proviso under Rule 6 (i) of the Punjab Printing and Stationery Department Service (State Service) Class I and It Rules, 1962, as per Government's letter, dated 24th March, 1977, copy of which has been produced as Annexure R/2. In regard to the annual confidential reports of the petitioner, the same as reproduced in Para 4 of the Writ Petition, were denied and all these reports in their correct form and detail were reproduced in Para 4 of the reply. In Para 4 of the reply, it was stated that the petitioner, while he was working as Deputy Controller in the year 1972, was charge-sheeted for various charges vide Punjab Government Memo, dated 9th June, 1972. On receipt of his explanation to the charge-sheet, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Government to enquire into the various charges levelled against him. The report of the Inquiry Officer was received and the matter was considered by the Government as result of which the petitioner was administered a warning to be careful in future for tampering with Government record as also for committing irregularities concerning the appointment of Class III and IV employees. A copy of the letter of warning, dated 9th September, 1974 was produced as Annexure Rule 4. As regards the criminal case under Section 5 (2) and 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Sections 120-B, 193, 467 and 474, IPC, which was registered against the petitioner at Police Station" Patiala City in the year 1972, it was averred that the Government passed orders on 29th August, 1974 that this case need not be pursued further. It was, however, denied that the case was dropped for want of evidence and that it had been registered on account of enmity. The fact that the petitioner while working as Deputy Controller, was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar as per order of the Government, dated 12th February, 1976, was admitted, but it was contended that this did not go to show that the adverse entries in his annual confidential record have been washed off.