YASH PAL MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the quashing of order, Annexure P-1, by which he has been retired from service under rule 5.32A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, read with rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. He has also challenged order, Annexure P.2 by which he has been relieved from the post of Deputy Director of Sports in the afternoon of 22.5.1992.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that he joined service as District Sports Officer on 25.10.1963 and was lastly promoted in October, 1989 as Deputy Director, Sports, a post which he held till the date of compulsory retirement. Regarding his service record, the petitioner has stated that he had rendered 29 years meritorious service except some adverse remarks in the confidential reports for the years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1985-86 and 1986-87, which were expunged by the Government on his representations. He has also made a reference to an order of warning which was administrated to him on the basis of a departmental enquiry held under rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1951. The petitioner has further stated that his promotion was challenged by one Sh. J.K. Rana in C.W.P. No. 9869 of 1989 but the same was dismissed by the High Court after considering the reply filed by the respondents wherein they had justified the petitioner's promotion notwithstanding the punishment of warning. The petitioner has made a detailed reference to his performance in the field of sports and has asserted that the Governor of Haryana had honoured him by awarding a Commendation Certificate for his outstanding performance in the field of sports. He further says that respondent No.2 was personally prejudiced against him because he had been elected as Honorary General Secretary of Haryana Veteran Athletic Association and respondent No.2 did not want the petitioner to continue his participation in the working of that Association and in order to wreak his vengeance, the respondent No.2 manipulated the petitioner's record which was placed before the Screening Committee for the purpose of considering the petitioner's case for premature retirement.

(3.) In reply, the respondents have stated that the entire service record of the petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee at the time of the scrutiny of his record for retirement and on the basis of an overall evaluation of the petitioner's case the Committee opined that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service. Consequently, the Government issued the impugned order of retirement of the petitioner.