- (1.) The petitioner through this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought for quashing of order dated 28th May, 1990, Annexure P-9, whereby the petitioner was retired from service prematurely. Besides this, he has also sought for quashing of order dated 26.4.1990, Annexure P-7, appointing Deputy Director of Horticulture as Inquiry Officer to conduct regular departmental enquiry against him and order dated 17.5.1990, Annexure P-8 vide which his representation dated 24.8.1988 made against adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 1987-88, was rejected.
(2.) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk in the Directorate of Agriculture in the erstwhile State of Pepsu on December 10, 1952. He was promoted from rank to rank and finally to the post of Superintendent Grade-I vide order dated 12.7.1989, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-5/A to the writ petition. The service record of the petitioner has been outstanding and only one adverse entry recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1987-88 was conveyed to him vide letter dated 27.5.1988, a copy of which is Annexure P-2. Against the said adverse report, he made a representation on 24.8.1988, which was rejected by the Director of Horticulture, Punjab, respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 17.5.1990. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him and the petitioner remained under suspension during the pendency of the same. Meanwhile the petitioner was exonerated of the charges levelled against him and he was reinstated in service. In the year 1989, respondent No. 2 after his retirement, made a complaint against the petitioner, whereupon de novo enquiry was ordered against him on the plea that the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, in which the petitioner was exonerated, was not proper as no evidence or statement of any of the witnesses were recorded by him. Later on, the petitioner was retired prematurely from service vide order dated 28.5.1990 Annexure P-9. Feeling aggrieved against the action of the respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. J.S Khehar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended tht the petitioner was retired prematurely on the basis of only one adverse entry recorded in his ACR for the year 1987-88. There was no material, whatsoever, for recording the same. Further the stand of the petitioner's Counsel is that on the basis of the adverse remarks, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him after recording the evidence of certain witnesses. In view of this, the action of respondents for holding of de novo enquiry is absolutely wrong and arbitrary.;