SARNAM SINGH DANGI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 02.12.1992 (Annexure P-6) retiring the petitioner compulsorily on completion of age of 55 years. The ground for doing so is the three adverse entries recorded on the integrity of the petitioner for the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1987-88. Counsel for the petitioner contends that these adverse entries which have been relied upon by the respondents for compulsorily retiring the petitioner were not conveyed to the petitioner prior to 18.11.1991. The same thus could not have been taken into consideration for passing the impugned order. Apart from this, he contends that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head Teacher in the year 1988 which is subsequent to the period for which the Annual Confidential Reports have been recorded to be adverse against the petitioner. The same thus could not have been taken into consideration for passing the order of compulsory retirement. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh, 2004 3 SCT 314, which is passed relying upon the judgment in Bainkutha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripura, 1992 2 SCC 299. Prayer has thus been made for setting aside the impugned order and granting the consequential benefits of continuance in service till the date of his superannuation.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that although the adverse Annual Confidential Reports were conveyed to the petitioner on 18.11.1991 and received by the petitioner on 25.11.1991, no representation against the same has been filed by the petitioner despite he having adequate opportunity to do so. Petitioner having accepted the adverse Annual Confidential Reports recorded against the petitioner cannot be now agitate and put forth an argument that the same cannot be taken into consideration by the respondents for passing an order of retiring him prematurely in exercise of powers under Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I, Part-I read with the Rule 5.32-A(c) and note therein. Counsel for the respondents has referred to the latest judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & others v. Babu Lal Jangir, 2013 LabIC 4215 to contend that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic and is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer. The power to retire compulsorily, the Government servant in terms of service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.

(3.) His further contention is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in The State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, 1998 4 SCC 92 which is a three Judge Bench where it has been held that the adverse entries prior to promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank are not wiped off and can be taken into account while considering the overall performance of the employee when it come to the consideration of case of that employee for premature retirement. He contends that there are three adverse entries which were conveyed to the petitioner and pertain to his integrity which have attained finality and therefore, reliance thereon for passing the impugned order is fully justified. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Pal v. State of Haryana, 2006 6 SLR 69to contend that if integrity of an employee is doubted even once then such an employee may have to be chopped off as a deadwood, which is in larger public interest. Prayer has thus been made for dismissal of the writ petition.