BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises a question as to the validity of the order passed by the director of Industries, Punjab, on September 7, 1968, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service after having been served with three months' notice.

(2.) FACTS are not In dispute. The petitioner Balbir Singh was originally appointed as manager in Wool Spinning and Weaving Centre at Patiala on May 31, 1954 by the state Government of the erstwhile Government of Patiala and East Punjab States union. He was transferred to Chandigarh as Marketing Assistant in the same grade of pay. He earned promotions afterwards and was transferred sometimes to Patiala and sometimes to Chandigarh on various posts till 1966 when he was posted to higher job with more emoluments as Sales Organiser in the office of marketing Officer in Punjab Government Emporium, Chandigarh. In May, 1967, the petitioner is said to have proceeded on earned leave. On return from leave, he was recommended by the Marketing Officer for promotion as Sales Manager hi the scale of Rs. 200-400. It was stated in the recommendation that the petitioner was an experienced hand, hard-working and intelligent official and his application deserved favourable consideration by the Department. It appears that the petitioner was making representations to the Director of Industries, Punjab, respondent 2, asking for promotion and a reply received by the immediate superior officer of the petitioner namely the Marketing Officer was that the request of the petitioner was under consideration and that he would be informed when the matter was decided. Since the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on August 16, 1968, he submitted an application addressed to the Marketing Officer in which a request was made that it be recommended to the Head Office that he be allowed to continue upto 58 years which according to the new rule was the age of superannuation. It was asserted by the petitioner in his application that he was perfectly fit to discharge his duties and that his services had always been appreciated by his superiors. The Marketing Officer submitted this application in original to the Director, respondent 2, recommending the same and it was also stated by the said officer that the confidential reports of the official had already been sent to the Director. It was then that an intimation was received as per letter annexure 'h', attached to the writ petition, that the services of the petitioner were being terminated and that the letter was to be treated as three months' notice. In this very communication, it was stated by the Director that the action was being taken on the basis of overall assessment of annual confidential reports earned by the petitioner. In other words, on consideration of the annual confidential reports, the petitioner was not considered to be a suitable person to be allowed to continue up to the age of 58 years. It is the validity of this order that is being challenged in the present writ petition. There is no dispute before me that the petitioner was appointed by the State Government in the erstwhile State of Patiala and East punjab States Union, and after the merger of Pepsu with the erstwhile Punjab in the year 1956 under the States Reorganization Act 1956, he was by virtue of section 116 of the said Act deemed to have been appointed to his post in the state of Punjab by the State Government. Mr. Puran Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following two contentions:- (1) That the petitioner has been compulsorily retired by the Director of industries, respondent 2, who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and no authority subordinate to the appointing authority could compulsorily retire the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years when the age of superannuation had been raised to 58 years; and (2) That the impugned order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the petitioner amounting to an order of removal of the petitioner from service by way of punishment within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and that no such order could be passed without following the prescribed procedure as envisaged in the said Article.

(3.) BEFORE answering the aforesaid contentions it is necessary to reproduce here for facility of reference the necessary service rule as contained in Volume 1, Part 1, of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rule 3. 26 runs as under:-