SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as an Inspector of Industries is aggrieved by the order dated July 8, 1993 by which he was ordered to be retired from service under rule 5.32A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II and Rule 3.26 (d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I. He submits that the order of retirement is wholly arbitrary and cannot be sustained in view of the service record.

(2.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. With the written statement a summary of the annual confidential reports has been produced.

(3.) In view of the summary of record as produced along with the written statement, probably two views were possible. However, it appears that the Motion Bench vide order dated October 12, 1993 had stayed the operation of the impugned order. As a result, the petitioner has continued in service. Still further, it is the admitted position that he is attaining the age of superannuation viz. 58 years on February 4, 1996. Since the petitioner has virtually completed the full tenure of service, no useful purpose would be served by going into the merits of the controversy at this stage. It is also apparent that the petitioner's reports have been by and large good or satisfactory. In the circumstances, it does not appear to be just and fair to hold that he was dead-wood which deserved to be chopped off.