HARPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure P-19) whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that while working as Excise and Taxation Officer, the petitioner was compulsorily retired vide impugned order dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure P-19) during pendency of the departmental inquiries and without even waiting for its outcome. It is mentioned in the impugned order that charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner to which he filed reply and thereafter, a regular inquiry was going on. It has also been mentioned therein that out of all his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), adverse remarks were recorded only in ACR for the year 2011-2012, which were duly conveyed to the petitioner and after considering the relevant record, it was decided to retire the petitioner compulsorily in view of provisions of Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1975') as well as instructions dated 26.9.1975 issued by the Government.

(3.) The impugned order of compulsory retirement has been challenged by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that incomplete departmental inquiry and un-communicated ACRs have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Out of total 25 ACRs, only one ACR for the year 2011-2012 was treated as adverse and the same was communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has even sent a statutory representation dated 28.02.2013 against the recording of adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2011-2012 but the same was not decided. Even in the vigilance inquiry, challan was not presented but a cancellation report was filed by the Vigilance Department before the Competent Court and same was accepted. Learned counsel also submits that the past service record of the petitioner has remained good since the year 1988 and he was exonerated of all the charges levelled in the first charge-sheet dated 17.12.2012 by the Inquiry Officer vide report dated 8.9.2014. The second charge-sheet was issued on 19.12.2013 and nothing was done in spite of changing of three Inquiry Officers. Learned counsel also submits that a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab to consider the service record of Class A and B Officers in the State of Punjab, for compulsory retirement on completion of their 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 years of service. The service record of 190 officers was considered but only the names of four officers including the petitioner were recommended for compulsory retirement. One Ms. Urvashi Goel, out of four officers, who were compulsorily retired, challenged the order of her compulsory retirement by way of filing CWP No. 23287 of 2014, which is pending consideration before this Court and the order of compulsory retirement has been stayed vide interim order dated 4.12.2014. Learned counsel further submits that the service record of the petitioner is on better footings vis.-a-vis. the service record of Ms. Urvashi Goel. It has been provided under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, 1975, that the appropriate authority has an absolute right to compulsorily retire an employee on completion of 25 years of qualifying service or on attaining of 50 years of age. It also provides that it can only be done by giving three months' prior notice to the concerned employee or on payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof. Said rules were amended vide notification dated 5.9.2014 and are called 'The Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) First Amendment Rules, 2014' whereby 25 years of service in Rule 3(1)(a) has been substituted to 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 years of service. Learned counsel has also relied upon judgments of Honourable the Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001(2) S.C.T. 339 : 2001 (3) SCC 314 , M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India, 1998 (7) SCC 310 , Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, 2008(3) S.C.T. 429 : 2008(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 432 : 2008 (8) SCC 725 , State of Gujarat and another Vs. Surya Kant Chunni lal Shah, 1999(1) S.C.T. 208 : 1999 (1) SCC 529 , H.C. of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Ishwar Chander Jain and another, 1999(2) S.C.T. 353 : 1999 (4) SCC 579 , Pawan N. Chandra Vs. Rajasthan High Court and another, 2009 (17) SCC 770 as well as judgments of this Court rendered in Jatinder Pal Singh Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 2005 (4) SCT 1 (HC DB) , Gurmail Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2002 (4) SCT 718 ( HC DB) , Ranbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, passed in CWP No. 8403 of 2006, decided on 24.12.2008 and Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, 1987 (2) SCC 188 in support of his contentions.