RADHA KRISHAN JUNEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Public Works Department (B&R) Branch has a two fold grievance. He is aggrieved by the order dated May 8,1991 by which he was given three months notice under Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume-II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Vol I, Part-I in spite of the fact that he had been granted the selection grade of Rs. 4100-5300 with effect from May 1,1989. He also challenged the show cause notice dated April 4,1991 (Annexure P-l) by which he was called upon to show-cause as to why his annual confidential report for the year 1980-81 may not be down graded from 'Good' to Average'. These orders have been challenged as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the rules governing the petitioner.

(2.) A written statement has been filed by Mr. Sukhbir Singh, IAS, Joint Secretary to Govt. Haryana on behalf of the respondents. The order of premature retirement is sought to be supported inter ilia on the ground that "as per Govt, instructions the last 10 years record of the official have, to be taken into consideration and an employee with 50% Good, Very Good record category i.e. better than Average should be retained in service beyond the age of 50 years and those with Average record should not be permitted to be retained in service. The case of the petitioner regarding retention in Govt, service at the age of 50 years was considered in accordance with the instructions quoted above and taken into consideration his last 10 years ACRs and disciplinary cases. The petitioner has earlier 10 reports during the period from 1980-81 to 1989-90 out of which 2 are below average, 4 average, 1 awaited and 2-2/3 good. Besides, the petitioner has been awarded different punishments in as many as six charge sheet cases. The summary giving overall assessment of service record is annexed R-11......As such a show-cause notice has been served upon the petitioner by the competent authority vide Annexure P-4 of the writ petition." The written statement goes on to state "that the service record of the petitioner is jinxed. Some of the reports are good and some are average/below average." This statement has been repeated at various places.

(3.) The case had come up for hearing originally on March 26,1992 when the matter had been partly heard. Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents had made a prayer for a short adjournment to enable him to "get instructions and to consider the desirability of withdrawing the impugned order". The case was accordingly adjourned to enable the counsel to get instructions. Today, Mr. Jaswant Singh has stated before that the respondent want the matter to be decided on merits. I have accordingly proceeded to hear the matter.