B. M Lal, J. - (1.) BY this petition the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the notice of forced retirement dated 29-9-1989 (Annexure-8). It is further prayed that the respondents be directed not to retire the petitioner before his due date of superannuation.
(2.) IN short, the facts leading to this petition are as under :- The petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Force with effect from 5-11-1955. It is contended that service rendered by the petitioner was found commendable and he was promoted to the post of Sub-INspector with effect from 20-1-1979. Thereafter, by an order dated 19-7-1989 (Annexure-7), a further promotion was given to the petitioner to the post of INspector, Railway Protection Force though on ad- hoc basis, and despite that he was served with the impugned notice dated 29-9-1989 referred to above for his forced retirement. While filing the counter-affidavit the respondents emerged with the plea that record of the petitioner was throughout bad and even in his annual confidential reports for the year 1967, 1979, 1982 and 1986, his integrity was suspected. It was next contended that the promotion of the petitioner vide order dated 19-7-1989 to the post of INspector is on ad hoc basis, and as such it does not wipe out his earlier adverse service record, and therefore justifying the notice of forced retirement, it is contended that this petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties perusing the record and relevant provisions of law applicable to the facts of the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed While exercising the powers conferred under Rule 56 upon the State, the only object is to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest or deadwood from the Government service. However, this power is to be exercised subject to the governing service Rules and constitutional limitations, and therefore public interest cannot be lost sight of in relation to compulsory retirement, and this only means that only honest and efficient Government servants be continued in service till the age of .superannuation and the rest who are dishonest and became deadwood be retired prematurely and in this respect even a single entry in service record Basting doubt on the integrity of the employee, no concession is to be given in retaining him in service and he should be retired prematurely in public interest. See Brij Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948.
(3.) APPLYING the above test as contended on behalf of the respondents that petitioner's integrity for the years 1967. 1979, 1982 and 1986 is doubtful and therefore on that count alone he should have been weeded out. However, by giving reference to the promotion order dated 19-7- 1989 (Annexure-7), it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his promotion to the post of Inspector after recording adverse entries relating to his integrity, cannot be lightly burshed aside as the adverse entries are prior to the promotion order dated 19-7-1989, and therefore the said entries cannot be taken into consideration for forming the opinion to retire him prematurely as the said adverse entries loose their significance after promotion of the petitioner. The simple logic behind it is that whatever adverse entries might be against the petitioner before his promotion dated 19-7- 1989, the same stand condoned by the respondent-employer by extending promotion to him to the higher post; of Inspector.;