R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was working as an Executive Engineer, was compulsorily retired from service by respondent vide order dated 17.12.1998, Annexure P -7, which is reproduced as below : - "Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Office Order No. 1947/EBS -511/Vol -III dated 17.12.98. Shri S.B. Panihar, Xen, attain the age 50 years on 14.5.1994 his date of birth being 15.5.1944. His retention case beyond the age of 50 years was continued to be considered but could not be finalised due to pending disciplinary case(s) in terms of Rule 3.26(d) of CSR Vol. 1 Part -I read with Rule 5.23 - A(c)/CSR Vol. II which provides as under : - a) Efficiency in performance during the last 10 years officers with 50% good record of service be retained. b) Integrity for the last 10 years of Service - should be good. In the meantime, Board of Directors of HVPNL in their meeting held on 10.9.98 (and circulated vide Memo No. CH8/NGE/G -1501 dated 25.9.98) decided as under: - The following items of misconduct/indiscipline on the part of an officer/official involves/constitutes the doubtful integrity of the officer/official concerned but, it has been observed that suitable remarks regarding doubtful integrity are not being given in the ARCs by the concerned reporting officers/next higher authority : - i) Delaying a case deliberately to give undue benefit of consumers). ii) Delaying a case deliberately to harass the consumer with an aim to get personal/illegal gratification from the consumer concerned. iii) Deliberate misinterpretation of codal instruments/rules to give undue financial benefit to the consumer. iv) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the commercial/financial interests of the HVPNL/HPGGL and to be benefit of the consumers). It has, therefore, been decided that punishment on account of (i) to (iv) above may be taken care of while deciding the cases regarding retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years. It has also been decided that in future the cases for retention in service beyond the age of 50 or 55 years, be put up to the Committee consisting of the following in respect of Engineers common cadre : - a) Director/Finance b) Director (OP), Director (transmission) c) Chief Engineer/Administration The Committee so constituted perused the case record, charge -sheets/show cause notices and punishments(s) to Sh. Panihar Xen. The details or which is as under : - i) Censured vide o/o No. 91/Conf. 1559/VO -5088 dated 25.9.90 in the matter of purchase of material and payments made to the labour. ii) Censured vide o/o No. 32/S -III/NGE/G -1281/L -37 dated 22.1.92 in the matter or appointment of 49 Nos. daily wage workers and not retrenching 38 daily wage workers while working in (OP) Divn. Narwana while for appointing of 98 working in (OP) Divn. Pehowa in violation of instructions issued vide Memo No. Ch.4/1 -477/NGE/G -1281 read with memo No. 6(1 -400)/NGE/G -1281 dated 10.3.83. iii) Warned to be more careful in future vide o/o No. 255/Conf. 4342 dated 30.7.98 with a copy in ACR file for diversion of funds. iv) Warned to be more careful in future vide memo No. Spl -I/EBG -511 dated 2.12.94 for damage of Board's assets (distribution transformers). v) Awarded punishment of stoppage of 2 increments without future effect vide -o/o No. 141/Conf. 2801 dated 8.7.94 for omission and commission of acting in a manner prejudicial to the commercial/financial interest of erstwhile Board while working as Xen. (OP) Divn. Narwana from 6.8.91 to 17.2.93. The committee also noted that following charge -sheets are pending against Shri S.B. Panihar, Xen : - i) Charge -sheet No. 100/Conf.2727 dated 18.3.96 while he remained posted as Xen. (OP) Divn. Narwana from 6.8.91 to 17.2.94 had committed the following acts of omission and commission unbecoming of an officer of erstwhile Board : - The Committee constituted vide p/o No. 205 dated 16.12.93 to ascertain losses in various S/Divisions under (OP) Division, Narwana has checked the records of S/Divns. as well as of Divisional Office and concluded that below mentioned lapses are on his part during the tenure in (OP) Divn. Narwana: "For lack of his supervisory checks on the works executed through the contractors being over all Head of the Divn. the Board has to suffer huge loss of amounting to Rs. 11,59,964.92 in the shape of excess payment made to the private contractors." ii) Charge -sheet No. 1/Conf. 4614 dated 11.8.98 as he deliberately concealed the facts and under -stated the lines losses for the month of 10/97 to 12/97 of (OP) Divn. Mohindergarh as per detail given below : - Month Reported Losses as per Energy Audit 10/97 11.40 31.90 11/97 18.50 24.90 12/97 16.25 34.30 and found that Shri S.B. Panihar, Xen. is unfit to be allowed extension beyond.the age of 50 years. Accordingly, the appointing authority has carefully gone through the report of the Committee and on the basis of recommendations of the Committee come to the conclusion that the integrity of the officer is doubtful and it would not be in the interest of HVPNL to keep him in service. In pursuance to above, Shri S.B. Panihar, Xen/C.C. Divn. Hisar is hereby retired from the service in public interest with immediate effect. A cheque bearing No. CC/16 -529067 dated 17.12.98 drawn on State Bank of Patiala payable at Hisar for Rs. 65,991/ - in lieu of three months notice period in favour of Shri S.B. Panihar, Xen. is sent herewith alongwith this order. This issues with the approval of Chairman -cum - Managing Director, HVPNL, Panchkula."
(2.) Almost an identical order was passed on the same date by the respondents compulsorily retiring one Shri R.K. Panjetha, who was also working as an Executive Engineer. Shri R.K. Panjetha challenged the order of compulsory retirement in this Court. However, the writ petition was dismissed, Mr. Panjetha took the matter before the Apex Court and the Apex Court allowed the appeal of Mr. Panjetha and set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Copy of the judgment in Panjetha's case has been appended by the Petitioner as Annexure P -30, which is dated April 25, 2000. The Apex Court after noticing the contents of the order of compulsory retirement passed against Mr. Panjetha, observed as under : - "A bare perusal of the order dated 17.12.1998 retiring the appellant compulsorily would indicate that it is stigmatic in character. Since the order ex -fade is stigmatic and is punitive, it cannot be sustained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the order dated 17.12.1998 retiring the appellant compulsorily from service is quashed with the direction that the appellant shall be put back to duty with all consequential benefits. The appellant shall be entitled to costs, which are quantified at Rs. 25,000/ -"
(3.) In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex court, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 17.12.1998, Annexure P -7, of compulsorily retiring the petitioner, the same being stigmatic and on the face of it punitive in character.;