PARKASH AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially recruited as a Clerk in the Labour Department of the erstwhile PEPSU on 10.9.1954 and thereafter was proofed as Shop Inspector on 2.6.1965. After the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, services were allocated to the successor State of Punjab. In due course of time, petitioner was promoted to the post of Labour Inspector Grade I. The petitioner closed his efficiency bar with effect from 1.1.1986. Petitioner was further promoted on a hoc basis as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, against a vacancy to be filled by recruitment. However, on 3.8.1987, he was reverted to the rank of Labour Indirect or Grade on administrative reasons which is a subject matter of challenge in sic Writ Petition by the Petitioner. Vide order dated 1.10.1989, the petitioner practice maturely retired from service on payment of 3 months' salary in lieu of no sic of the said order has been attached as annexure P. 4 to the writ petition. It order which is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) It has been averred by the writ petitioner that there was nothing adverse to petitioner which could be the basis for forming an opinion that it was in the public sic to pre-maturely retire the petitioner. It has been stated that his work and concluded was good and he cleared his efficiency bar on due date and had also earned promotions so much so that in 1987, he was even considered fit for promotion to the rank of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer though on ad hoc basis. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been averred in para 7 as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is clear from the pleadings of the respondents in the written statement that the action of pre-maturely retiring the petitioner was on the receipt of the enquiry of the Vigilance Department wherein the Vigilance Department had recommended major punishment against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of this, it is apparent that the impugned order had been passed by way of punishment and, therefore,is in violation of Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules as no enquiry envisaged under those rules has been held against the petitioner, In SUpport of his contention, learned counsel relied upon Dr. Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Haryana (1987(5) S.L.R. 560 ), Ram Ekbal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and another, (AIR 1990 S.C. 1368) and N.K. Vij Vs. The State of Punjab, (1991(2) R.SJ. 653 ). In Dr. Ghanshyam Sharma's case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that there was nothing against the petitioner in that case for the last 10 years before the order of premature retirement was passed but the same was based on ex-parte report of the Vigilance Department; such ex-parte report of the Vigilance Department could not form the basis of premature retirement. The premature retirement in that case was quashed. Before the Supreme Court, in Ram Eqbal Sharma's case (supra), it was averred by the Slate in the pleadings that the order of premature retirement had been passed in of the financial irregularities committed by him leading to the financial loss. It was held that the order cannot but be said to have been made by way of punishment, similar was the view in N.K. Vij's case (supra).