JOGINDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice of compulsory retirement dated April 15, 1987 (Annexure P-1) retiring him from service upon attaining the age of 55 years.

(2.) The petitioner initially joined the Public Works (Electricity Branch) Department, Government of Punjab on a group D post as Laboratory Attendant on March 10, 1954. He was promoted as Laboratory Assistant (Group C) on September 21, 1959. On the re-organisation of the States of Punjab and Haryana, the Petitioner was allocated to the State of Haryana in November, 1966 and on constitution of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), his services were transferred to the afore-mentioned Board. The petitioner was further promoted as Assistant Engineer (Group B) on October 31, 1971 and thereafter reached to the status of Class-I Service when he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Group A) on February 15, 1984. It is the case of the petitioner that in his entire service career spanning over 33 years, he was conveyed only one "average" report for the year 1976-77 which contained adverse remarks that "he was an easy going officer who does not carry out the instructions of the senior." Notwithstanding the spotless service career, studded with repeated promotions, complaints the petitioner, that he was served with a notice dated April 15, 1987 (Annexure P-1) informing him that in exercise of its power under Rule 3.26(d) of Punjab C.S.R. Vol. I, Part I read with Rule 5.32(c) of Punjab C.S.R. Vol. II as applicable to the Haryana State Electricity Board, it was decided to retire him from the service of the Board in "public interest" and as such he was given a three months notice of retirement from service on expiry of which he shall stand retired from the service of the Board with effect from July 24, 1987. The petitioner submitted an appeal by registered post on May 23, 1987 (Annexure P-2) before the Chairman of the Board against the afore-mentioned order, however, having received no response to the same, he has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Upon notice, written statement has been filed on behalf of the Board. The facts regarding more than one promotions earned by the petitioner to see rise in his career from Group-D employee to a Group-A officer, are not disputed. So is the admitted position with regard to communication of one "average" report for the year 1976-77. The impugned order of premature retirement, however, is sought to be defended on the premise that in terms of government policy dated August 16, 1983 (Annexure R-2), which has been adopted by the Board, an official/officer is required to possess at least 70% or more good or better annual confidential reports during the last 10 preceding years for his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years. According to the Respondent, the petitioner had earned only 50% good reports in the last 10 preceding years, the details of which, as given in paragraph 4 of the written statement, are reproduced hereunder :- S. No. Period Assessment Integrity Remarks 1. 2.6.76 to 31.3.77 Average -- Adverse remarks at CP-63 An easy going officer does not carry out the instructions of the senior. 2. 22.7.77 to 31.3.78 Good Honest 3. 1.4.78 to 31.3.79 Good Honest 4. 1.4.79 to 31.3.80 Average Honest 5. 1.4.80 to 31.3.81 Average Good 6. 13.6.81 to 31.3.82 Good Honest 7. 1.4.82 to 31.3.83 Above Average Honest 8. 17.6.83 to 26.2.84 Average Not upto Not to be treated as adverse as per CP-114 9. 1.4.84 to 31.7.84 Average Honest 10. 1.8.84 to 31.3.85 Average Honest 11. 1.4.86 to 31.7.87 Good Above Board