H K SHARMA Vs. HSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 25th March, 1987 (Annexure P-1), in pursuance whereof he was prematurely retired from service of the Haryana State Electricity Board with effect from 26th June, 1987, after attaining the age of 55 years, on the ground that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, perverse and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it has denied to the petitioner equality of opportunity in the matter of employment by curtailing the tenure of his service by three years.

(2.) The petitioner was born on 8th February, 1932, and he joined service in March, 1956, in the P.W.D. Electricity Branch of the Punjab Government, as Meter Clerk. With the formation of the Punjab State Electricity Board in the year 1959, his services were allocated to the Board where he continued to serve upto 1st May, 1967, when the Punjab State Electricity Board was dissolved. From the very next day, that is, 2nd May, 1967, Haryana State Electricity Board was constituted and the petitioner's services were allocated to the said newly constituted Board. It was with this Board that the petitioner had been serving on various posts right upto 25th March, 1987, when the impugned notice of premature retirement was served on him. During his twenty years' service under the Haryana State Electricity Board, the petitioner has earned a number of promotions and starting from the petty post of a Meter Clerk, he came to be promoted as S.A.S. Accountant in 1981. The petitioner has claimed that his service record has throughout been 'good'/very good', as no adverse report or remark has ever been communicated to him. In any case, during the last ten years, that is, from 1st April, 1977 to 31st March, 1987, his record of service has always been categorised as 'good' or 'very good'. Despite all this, on 25th March, 1987, suddenly, the respondent Haryana State Electricity Board, through its Chief Accounts Officer, served on the petitioner a notice under Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Vol. I, Part I, read with Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume II, intimating the petitioner that he shall stand retired from the service of the Board after the expiry of three months, that is, with effect from 26th June, 1987. It is this impugned notice dated 25th March, 1987, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the premature retirement of the petitioner was not in public interest as his record of service has always been 'good' and the age of superannuation being 58 years, it could not be curtailed to 55 years by the respondents, without any cogent reasons or justification therefor.

(3.) In the reply to the writ petition filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board, the factual position has almost been admitted. The only ground on which the impugned notice of premature retirement is sought to be justified is, that there were some complaints against the petitioner and a charge-sheet had been issued on him on 2nd November, 1982. Therefore, it was considered by the Board, that instead of adopting a lengthy and time-consuming procedure of holding a fullfledged inquiry on each of the various charges against the petitioner, he should be retired from service and should not be retained beyond 55 years.