GORAKH NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of aforementioned three writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 5173 of 1996, wherein challenge is to an order dated 18.01.1996, whereby the petitioner was compulsory retired in terms of Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I read with Rule 5.32(A) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana; CWP No. 164 of 1996, wherein challenge is to the adverse remarks i.e. 'C - Integrity Doubtful' recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACR') for the year 1994-95 (ending 31.03.1995) and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.11.1995; and CWP No. 3358 of 1999, wherein challenge is to the adverse remarks i.e. 'C (Below Average)' recorded in the ACR for the year 1995-96 (ending on 31.03.1996) and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.09.1998. Since all the writ petitions raised common question of law and facts, therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together. The petitioner herein joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on 10.11.1965. The petitioner was allocated to the State of Haryana upon creation of separate State in November 1966. The petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 10.11.1989 and was to superannuate upon attaining the age of 60 years in the month of November, 1999.

(2.) The petitioner has averred that in the ACR for the year 1994-95, it was recorded that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. The said adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.11.1995, but without waiting for the representation, which could be submitted within the time granted, an order of compulsory retirement has been passed on 18.01.1996 consequent to the recommendations of the Full Court in its meeting held on 16.11.1995. In CWP No. 164 of 1996, the grievance of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 1994-95 were not supported by reasons. Such remarks could be recorded only on some reasonable basis. It is contended that the petitioner was not confronted with any complaint nor any adverse material was supplied to the petitioner during the year in question. Therefore, he has no opportunity to show cause for recording of the adverse remarks and consequent order of compulsory retirement. It is also contended that the right of representation against the adverse remarks stands frustrated, as the order of compulsory retirement was passed soon after the remarks were recorded.

(3.) In CWP No. 3358 of 1999, it is argued that the adverse remarks were recorded and communicated to the petitioner on 16.09.1998 i.e. after the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed on 18.01.1996.