RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On November 16, 1996, the petitioner who was working as a Treasury Officer was ordered to be retired ''with immediate effect in public interest''. The petitioner impugns this order as being totally arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been stated that the petitioner's case for retention in service on attaining the age of 55 years was considered by the 'Officers' Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, Administrative Secretary and Head of Department.....'. It has been further pointed out that after the petitioner had been promoted as Treasury Officer on July 19, 1983, he had been warned to be careful on three occasions and vide order dated December 4, 1992, a penalty of stoppage of one increment had been awarded to him. In the confidential report for the year 1987-88, the petitioner's performance was found to be average. In the annual confidential report for the period from November 4, 1989 to March 31, 1990, the accepting officer had recorded remarks as under:-

(3.) The petitioner had filed a replication to controvert the averments made in the written statement.