LAWS(P&H)-1993-4-105

SURESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On April 20, 1993
SURESH CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The paper book is voluminous but the point involved in this case is short. It is, therefore, not necessary to notice the facts in detail.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated Sept. 20, 1990 by which he was given a notice that he will retire from service with effect from Dec. 29, 1990. This order reads as under:-

(3.) On a perusal of the personal file of the petitioner, I am satisfied that the Department had good reason to retire the petitioner. However, the order passed contains express words of stigma. It, therefore, ceases to be a simple order of retirement. This view finds support from the observation of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260. Madan Mohan Nagar was retired in accordance with the provisions of the rules on the ground that "he has outlived his utility." On a review of the case law, it was held that "there is no doubt that the order does cause a stigma on the respondent. "This view was reiterated in I.N. Saksena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1264, wherein it was inter alia held that "this Court has consistently held that where the order directing compulsory retirement expressly contains words which cast a stigma on a Government servant, the order is equivalent to an orders of removal and action under Art. 311 is necessary." In paragraph 7, there Lordships observed that "where an order requiring a Government servant to retire compulsory contains express words from which a stigma can be inferred, that order will amount to removal within the meaning of Art. 311." In the present case, the express words cast a stigma. Any body who reads this order would conclude that the petitioner is not honest and that his record of service was bad. The case clearly falls within the rule laid down in the above noted two cases.