K.K. VAID Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is before us on a reference primarily to judge the vires or validity of the Haryana Government instructions dated August 13, 1983 (Annexure P -3 to the petition). The relevant part of these instructions reads as follows:

(2.) AS the learned Single Judge before whom the case initially came up for hearing was of the opinion that the question involved is likely to govern the fate of a large number of employees and a good number of similar cases pending in this Court, it is worthwhile that the question be decided by a larger Bench. This is how we are seized of the case.

(3.) IT is the categoric case of the Respondent authorities (para 13 of the written statement) that the Petitioner has been retired in terms of the rules referred to in the order and the Government instructions Annexure P.3. Their precise stand is that since the service record of the Petitioner did not meet the criteria laid down in Annexure P.3, they had no choice but to retire him compulsorily. In other words, the stand is that since the Petitioner failed to get 70 per cent 'good or above' confidential reports during the last ten years of his service career, he had to be shunted out in public interest. On the other hand, what is urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that the above noted criteria as contained in the Government instructions is not only violative of the test laid down in Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, but is also in direct conflict with 3.26(a) of these rules. Before proceeding any further it appears appropriate to notice the contents of these provisions and to have a glance at the balance -sheet of the Petitioner's service record as disclosed in the written statement itself. The relevant contents of Clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 3.26 are as follows: