- (1.) The defendant has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court reversing on appeal those of the trial Judge and granting a declaration to the respondent/plaintiff that the order dated May 17, 1985 prematurely retiring him from Government service is illegal and invalid.
(2.) The facts :- The respondent/plaintiff joined service as Sectional Officer in the then State of PEPSU in the Department of Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) on April 20, 1954; was declared quasi-permanent in the year 1956; was made permanent on January 27, 1960; was granted Selection Grade with effect from February 3, 1968 and was promoted as Sub-Divisional Engineer on regular basis on February 3, 1971. He was put on two years probation which he successfully completed on February 2, 1973 and was confirmed as such on May 19, 1981. He was promoted as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis in January, 1977 and took charge of Public Health Division, Moga on January 19, 1977 under Shri O.P. Satija, Superintending Engineer. His services were regularised as Executive Engineer on October 10, 1979, on completion of probation period of one year. On May 30, 1978, he was conveyed the report for the year 1977-78, wherein it was mentioned that he had poor control over his staff and his over all assessment was below average. Against these remarks, he made representation to the government, which was rejected. In that representation, he made allegation of mala fide against Shri O.P. Satija, reporting officer. Mr. Satija, in his annual inspection report of the Division, did not mention any serious irregularity and gave his report as satisfactory and proposed the retention of the Division. In his audit note, Mr. Satija stated that the work and conduct of the respondent/plaintiff was quite good and workload of Rs. 41.94 lacs had been achieved during the year 1977-78 as against the workload of Rs. 30 lacs. There was, however, difference between the reports recorded in the Annual Confidential Report and the remarks given by the Reporting Officer in reply to the audit notes for the same year. In another report from 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1979, adverse entry was conveyed to the respondent/plaintiff. He submitted his representation to the government on September 12, 1979, which was rejected on April 2, 1980, on the ground that it was filed beyond limitation. The plaintiff's integrity was doubted again as reflected in the report for the period from April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980. On the representation made by the plaintiff, these adverse remarks were expunged. Adverse reports for the period from August 1, 1981 to November 30, 1981 and December 1, 1981 to March 31, 1982 were conveyed to him. He filed representation against these adverse remarks, which were not decided till the institution of the suit. Adverse report for the period from June 3, 1983 to November 13, 1983 was conveyed to the plaintiff, against which representation was filed, but the same was rejected. On May 17, 1985, the defendant retired the plaintiff prematurely under Rule 3(1)(e) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules (for short, the Rules). The plaintiff filed representation against the order of premature retirement, which was rejected on October 17, 1985. The order of premature retirement was principally challenged on the ground that it was based on the recommendations of the Screening and Moderation Committee, which was not posted with correct facts. The order of premature retirement was passed without disposing of his representation against the adverse remarks for period August 1, 1981 to November 30, 1981 and December 1, 1981 to March 31, 1982. The adverse remarks in the reports for these periods were made on the basis of the complaint made by Shri A.K. Batra, Junior Engineer; that complaint was found to be false and Shri A.K. Batra was charge-sheeted by the Superintending Engineer.
(3.) The defendant in the written statement pleaded that during the year 1977-78, the performance of the plaintiff was found unsatisfactory and the Annual Confidential Report for the period from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978 contained adverse remarks, which were conveyed to the plaintiff. His representation was rejected. It was admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as Executive Engineer vide order dated October 10, 1979, but since his work was not found satisfactory during the period he remained on probation, he was reverted to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer vide order dated October 8, 1982. However, this order was subsequently rescinded and he was declared to have completed his probation period of one year. The representations filed by him could not be disposed of for want of result of the enquiry. The representations were still under consideration when the order of premature retirement was passed. It was denied that the adverse remarks for the period from August 1, 1981 to March 31, 1982 were made on the complaint made by Shri A.K. Batra, Junior Engineer. It was admitted that representation against those remarks were pending consideration when the order of premature retirement was passed. The adverse remarks for the period from June 3, 1983 to November 13, 1983 were recorded on the basis of overall performance of the plaintiff and not merely on the basis of the complaints. No representation was made against the adverse remarks within limitation. It was further pleaded that the premature retirement was legal and valid.;