BANWARI LAL Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner who was working as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Una, filed this Writ petition alleging that the Respondent is taking action of pre -maturely retiring him on the basis of a departmental enquiry which has been instituted and which is still pending. According to him the order or retirement is not in the public interest but it is as a matter of punishment arising out of the departmental proceeding which is the foundation of passing an order of pre -mature retirement. Further that this order or pre -mature retirement is based upon non -existent and extraneous grounds. He has, therefore, prayed that the order of the Respondent retiring him pre -maturely may be quashed.

(2.) The Petitioner had joined the Excise Department in the former State of Punjab. He was promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on November 16, 1963. He was allocated to Himachal Pradesh on the reorganisation of the State of Punjab with effect from 1 -11 -1966. According to him, he has maintained a good record of efficiency and integrity. During the course of his service he has earned certificates of commendation of his superior officers who had the occasion to deal with him and to appreciate and judge his work. Besides this he was also granted a commendation certificate by the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh. He is to attain the age of superannuation, that is the age of 58 years on 28th April, 1979, but the Respondent is threatening to retire him pre -maturely in exercise of the powers under Rule 3(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Pre -mature Retirement) Rules, 1976, (Shortly called the Rules) and that this action is in violation of the provisions of Article 16 of the constitution. The action is arbitrary, capricious and without any material. The Respondent has to form the opinion which has to be honest and legal opinion under Rule 3(1) of the Rules.

(3.) The Respondent pleaded that the Petitioner had been retired from the Government service in pursuance of Rule 3(1)(i) of the Rules after completing 30 years qualifying service. He has completed 55 years of age and Government is fully competent to retire him in public interest under the provisions of the aforesaid rule. He has got no right to maintain the writ petition. He could file an application for review to the Government. His retirement is in public interest and in accordance with the rules and not as a measure of penalty. It was further averred that the Petitioner was not found fit to be continued in service not being an officer of a desired standard of integrity. The competent authority was satisfied after applying its mind fully that it was in the public interest to retire the Petitioner.