BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present Civil Writ Petition has impugned the order dated 22.2.1996, copy annexure P-1 to the writ petition, whereby he has been prematurely retired from service from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health in PWD (Public Health Branch), Haryana.

(2.) Facts relevant to the controversy involved in this case as pleaded by the petitioner are that he initially joined the service as Junior Engineer on 24.1.1963 who was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on 4.11.1981, reverted as Junior Engineer on 12.3.1985 and again promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer in the year 1989-90. He claims his record to be unblemished and that no adverse remarks have ever been communicated to him except for the year 1988-89 and as per his knowledge, even those adverse remarks were expunged on the representation made by the petitioner. However, the petitioner pleads that he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 15.5.1990 and the said punishment was over in the year 1992. Secondly the petitioner admits that he was issued a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 on 18.11.1993 to which the petitioner filed reply. The Inquiry Officer was appointed and he exonerated him in regard to charge No. 4 and held him guilty in charge Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on 30.8.1995 proposing stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 1,59,529.20 (copy annexure P-3 to the writ petition). The petitioner claims to have filed reply to the show cause notice and it is after filing of the writ petition, the respondents have imposed the penalty vide order dated 8.4.1996 (copy annexure P-4 to the writ petition), received by him on 1.5.1996.

(3.) The petitioner pleads that other officers have not been penalised and his reply was not considered by the respondents. The petitioner is due to retire on 30.5.1998 after attaining the age of 58 years. However, the respondents already retired him pre-maturely vide order dated 22.2.1996, annexure P-1. The petitioner has claimed that except for 1988-89, no other adverse A.C.R. was communicated and entire record was good/very good. However, the adverse remarks for the year 1988-89 were expunged by the Engineer-in-Chief. Hence he prays the quashing of impugned order dated 22.2.1996, annexure P-1, and allow him to continue in service as if no impugned order has been passed.