SHAMSHER KAUR Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order Annexure P -1, - -vide which applying Rule 5.32(C) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume, II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume -I, Government of Haryana, in the public interest, ordered pre -mature retirement, the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts as culled out from the pleadings of the parties would reveal that the Petitioner joined the Education Department on 19th October, 1977. She was at the relevant time Lecturer in Botany, posted at Government College (Women), Rohtak, and had attained 50 years of age when she received order of pre -mature retirement annexure P -1 as has been described above dated 26th September, 1991. It is the case of the Petitioner that in her whole service career she had shown excellent results which demonstrated her ability as teacher. That apart, she had many research articles to her credit. Her one article "Simple Correlation of various Chemical Components of Plants" was published in the journal of international reputation in the year 1981 and another journal.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that for the last more than eight years no adverse remarks were conveyed to the Petitioner and it is by now well settled law that no adverse order like pre -mature retirement can be passed on the basis of such adverse confidential reports which, have not been communicated to the official/officer and against which adverse remarks there was no chance or occasion to file any representation. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel that in -as -much -as, the results of the Petitioner have always been excellent she could not be retired in public interest as the said interest could only he achieved by removing the dead wood and to chop off such element which may be burden on the department as also that service tenure of the Petitioner has been cut -short by as many as eight years without any justifiable reasons. Based upon the service record of the Petitioner, as has been narrated above, the State counsel however, refutes the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.