STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PURAN CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana, who is the appellant, maintains that the order of premature retirement passed against the respondent was legal and valid and that it had been wrongly set aside by the learned single Judge. Is it so? A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE respondent had served in the Indian Army from June 14, 1955 to November 2, 1971. After his retirement from the Army, he had joined as a Clerk with the Directorate of Employment in the Slate of Haryana on January 5, 1972. On May 3, 1991, the respondent was served with a notice of three months under the rules for premature retirement. The writ petition preferred by him was allowed by the learned single Judge in view of the fact that the instructions issued by the Haryana Government vide letter dated August 16, 1983, had been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in K. K. Vaid v. State of Haryana, 1990 (1) SLR 1. The appellant contends that the action of the learned single Judge in setting aside the order of retirement cannot be sustained. The two fold submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the decision in K. K. Void's case has already been reversed by a Full Bench of this Court. Secondly, it is maintained that the record of the respondent was such as justified his being weeded out.

(3.) FIRST of all the record of the respondent. The learned single Judge has noticed the summary of the record in the judgment. It is as under :-