KRISHAN KUMAR BANSAL Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the notification dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P-42), issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and justice by which the petitioner was retired prematurely, upon completion of service of twenty years, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the said notification and also the various actions taken by the High Court for recommending the premature retirement of the petitioner in the present petition. FACTS:

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gurdaspur on 14.11.2012 by way of promotion in the judiciary. He served for about 22 years in the judiciary. For the 2014-15 the Administrative Judge of Gurdaspur Sessions Division recorded adverse inspection remarks against him. After almost two years stating about the quality of work as 'poor' and in column number 7 integrity 'doubtful' and over all grading was given as 'C' (below average). The said remark is not based on actual and correct facts nor legally sustainable. There was no complaint received against the petitioner from any quarter about his work and conduct during the said period i.e. from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. The petitioner filed a detailed representation (Annexure P-2) against the said adverse remark. However the same was rejected by the Full Court. The rejection order does not reveal any reason which is illegal. His representation for review also stood rejected by another order dated 07.02.2018. The petitioner had decided six cases under the NDPS Act acting as Special Court under the NDPS Act. But in five cases out of six due to sheer inadvertence and pressure of work he ordered sentence ranging from 6 to 7 years i.e. less than the mandatory sentence of ten years plus fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 provided by law. The petitioner having realized about it, invoked the provision of Sec. 362 Penal Code and thereafter awarded the proper sentence which was under challenge and therefore there could be no cause for complaint against him. Similarly in CRA-S-5154-SB of 2016 a Single Judge of this Court had asked his explanation and accordingly he tendered explanation about the inadvertence which was accepted and therefore there was no cause for the High Court to take any adverse action against him. The ACRs from the years 1996-97 i.e. his entry in the service in the judiciary till the year 2011-12 were all 'B+' and 'A' and it was only for the year 2014-15, the entry was 'C' below average. For the year 2015-16 the Administrative Judge of Sessions Division Gurdaspur was satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner as stated above and in addition it was remarked that there was a mere irregularity in the sentencing but there was nothing wrong about the integrity of the petitioner. Thus the Administrative Judge for the said year did not have any doubt about the integrity of the petitioner and that is why the grading was done by him as 'B' satisfactory. There are thus two contradictory remarks and no action against the petitioner could have been taken.

(3.) The petitioner was served with a chargesheet, but no regular departmental enquiry was held against him. But then without taking any decision on the said chargesheet and the domestic enquiry, the employer found out a novel method of retiring the petitioner at the age of 55 years by way of compulsory retirement. The Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules 1975 (in short, Rules of 1975) (Annexure P-40) cannot be applied to the petitioner who was appointed as subordinate judge in Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch State of Punjab as the same would be in violation of Art. 234 of the Constitution of India. The retirement of the petitioner in question is in fact based on the chargesheet dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure P-24) served on him, for the alleged misconduct. Therefore by lifting the veil, it will be seen that the petitioner was in fact removed from the service by way of punishment without holding the enquiry. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition. ARGUMENTS: