RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 8.12.2005. (P-7) which is a notice served on the petitioner that he shall stand retired from service on the expiry of the three months from the date of receipt of the order by him. The aforementioned notice has been issued in pursuance to provisions contained in Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume-II read with Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume-I, Part-I (as application to Haryana). Accordingly the petitioner has been retired w.e.f. 20.3.2006 after reinstating him. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has been facing a charge sheet and was placed under suspension on 8.11.2004 (P-3) and charge sheet against him was issued on 27.12.2004 (P-4). A perusal of the record produced by the respondents in the written statement from 1993-94 onward shows that he has earned adverse remarks for the period from 23.4.1993 to 31.3.1994 as Below Average and his integrity was considered doubtful. His subsequent report from the year 1994 till the year 2002-2003 has been Good/Very Good. However, he has been issued a charge sheet in the year 2004 levelling allegation that he has embezzled an amount of Rs. 2,73,886/during the period commencing from 1.7.1992 to 30.6.2003. A regular departmental enquiry has already been held and the action thereon was in progress.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the order of premature retirement of the petitioner deserves to be upheld. It is well settled that if integrity of an employee is doubted even once during his service career then such an employee may have to be chopped off as a deadwood, which is in larger public interest. The aforementioned proposition has repeatedly been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In Baikuntha Nath Das V/s. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 2 SCC 299, the whole earlier case law was reviewed by Their Lordships and following five propositions were extracted, which are as under:

(3.) There is no merit in this petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed.