BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 6.6.2006 (P-5), passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal, prematurely retiring the petitioner, is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The principal ground for retiring the petitioner is that his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1997-98 shows that he was not an honest official. The aforementioned remarks about his integrity were conveyed to him on 28.12.1998. Despite the fact that there was no legal obligation to grant personal hearing to the petitioner, he was heard personally and thereafter the impugned order was passed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the representation filed by the petitioner is pending consideration of the authorities and during pendency of the representation impugned order, dated 6.6.2006, could not have been passed. However, we do not see any reason to accept the aforementioned submission made by the learned counsel as it is by now well settled that even un-communicated adverse remarks can be taken into consideration and the pendency of a representation against such adverse remarks would not come in the way of the authorities to pass an order of compulsory retirement. In that regard reliance can be placed on the judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court in the case of Baikunt Nath Dass Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 : [1992(2) SLR 2 (SC)]. The aforementioned view has been repeatedly followed and applied by Honourable the Supreme Court in the case of Badri Nath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 8 SCC 395 ; State of U.P. Vs. Raj Kishore Goel, (2001)10 SCC 183 ; and Union of India Vs. V.P. Seth, AIR 1994 SC 1261 : [1995(4) SLR 708 (SC)]. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 6.6.2006 (P-5). Dismissed. Petition dismissed.