- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE core question, in this appeal, arising out of a judgment and order dated 17. 08. 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and haryana in CWP No. 10549 of 2004, is as to whether an order of compulsory retirement being a stigmatic one would be valid in law. Appellant was directed to be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 years in terms of a circular letter dated 14. 08. 1981 laying down guidelines for compulsory retirement, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: " (i) Although the entire service record of an employee has to be considered, premature retirement should not be ordered if during the last 5 years the work and conduct of the employee has been good or better than that. (ii) Ordinarily, no retirement should be ordered within a period of one year preceding the date of superannuation of the Government employee. (iii) If an adverse entry relating to integrity exists in the confidential reports during the 10 years preceding the review, or if after its recording there has been no change in the class, status or the post of the officer, that single entry should be considered sufficient for ordering premature retirement. (iv) If the adverse report on integrity relates to the distant past or is more than 10 years old, the subsequent record of the employee should be scrutinized carefully if the subsequent reports vouch-safe the integrity of the employee in unambiguous terms, the inference is that he has improved his conduct and it should not be necessary to order his premature retirement. A similar view can be taken if an employee has been promoted after the recording of the adverse remarks. " Admittedly, the said order of retirement dated 29. 09. 2003 was based on the aforementioned circular letter. It reads as under: "whereas Shri Swaran Singh Chand, UDC s/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh presently working in the office of Sr. Xen, Focal Point spl. Division, Ludhiana has attained the age of 55 years on 14. 10. 01 because his date of birth is 15-10-1946. Whereas, as per PSEB Services (Premature Retirement) Regulations, the case of Shri Swarn Singh Chand UDC was considered on 17. 9. 2003 by the High empowered Integrity Committee (HEIC)which has been set up to screen the cases of non-gazetted employees of Central zone for retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years. The Committee took note of ACRs, disciplinary Cases, personal record and his reputation. Report of disciplinary cases of above noted employee (as derived from his personal file) is as under: ce/op/central Zone, Ludhiana stopped one increment without future effect vide this office order 81 dated 5. 2. 96 in the case of charge sheet No. C-653 dated 30. 5. 95 issued to him for embezzlement of Board's cash of Rs. 3069/- from M/s Falcon industry having A/c No. J537. The assessment of ACRs of the above official was scrutinized and observed that the following ACRs are below average with adverse remarks: (1) 28. 10. 93 to 31. 3. 94 below average integrity doubtful with adverse remarks of the following nature JUDGEMENT_385_JT8_2009Html1.htm (2) 1. 4. 94 to 20. 10. 94 Below Average with adverse of following nature : JUDGEMENT_385_JT8_2009Html2.htm
(3.) APPELLANT indisputably preferred an appeal thereagainst. In the Memorandum of Appeal, he questioned the legality of the said order inter alia contending: (i) Although a disciplinary proceeding for imposing major penalty had been initiated, a minor punishment was imposed without holding a departmental proceeding. (ii) ACRs of the relevant period had been recorded within a period of 11 1/2 months only for the purpose of upholding the chargesheet. (iii) He, having been promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk by an office order no. 135 dated 6. 11. 2001, the Appointing authority could not have taken into consideration his ACRs prior to the said period. The said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, stating: "i have gone through the relevant record/ comments of field officers and it is found that there is no point in his pleading that he was promoted as UDC recently. In promotion cases, different criteria are followed. In promotions on seniority-cum-merit, incumbent is required to qualify only minimum bench marks on the basis of acrs of last 5 years and punishment awarded in disciplinary cases. In cases for extension in service, past 10 years' record of the concerned employee is put to be screened by the HEIC constituted for the purpose. The appellant has mostly average record including his ACR for 28. 10. 93 to 31. 3. 94 as Below Average with integrity as 'doubtful'. Further his ACR for 1. 4. 94 to 20. 10. 94 was also below average. In the disciplinary case relating to embezzlement of Rs. 3069/-, his one AGI without future effect, was stopped. Therefore, the decision of the competent authority is found to be based on facts and record and there is no justification to intervene in the recommendations made by HEIC of Central Zone with regard to his extension in service being not approved on the basis of which, the competent authority, viz CE/op. (Central), Ludhiana has ordered his premature retirement. Appeal rejected. " Indisputably, therefore, not only a minor punishment inflicted on him had been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, but it was also based inter alia on the premise that his integrity was doubtful.;