- (1.) Shri Kanwal Singh Daulta, District Probation Officer, Central Jail, Hisar, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certioari for quashing the impugned order dated 20th September, 2000 (Annexure P-9) vide which the petitioner was compulsorily retired.
(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he joined the Army on 28th August, 1963 during emergency and served the country up to 20th November, 1968. Later on he joined as Assistant Superintendent (Jail) at Karnal on 15th November, 1974. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Jail) on 19th October, 1988. He earlier filed C.W.P. No. 15986 of 1994 along with others for seeking the benefit of emergency service which was granted to the petitioner and he was given promotion w.e.f. 3rd September, 1981. The petitioner received a letter dated 22nd July, 1994 in which four months A.C.R. w.e.f. 1.4.1992 to 31.7.1992 was conveyed and the overall assessment was given as "satisfactory". The petitioner also received a letter dated 27th October, 1999 regarding A.C.R. for the year 1998-99 in which he was graded as average. The petitioner filed an appeal against the conveyed ACRs on 27th October, 1999. According to the petitioner, he worked sincerely to the satisfaction of his superiors. On 25th May, 2000, respondent No. 1 passed an order and promoted some junior persons but the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Jail. The petitioner made a representation for supply of the copies of the ACRs for the years 1998-99 to 1994-1995, but no action was taken on his representation dated 24th July, 2000. Finally, the petitioner received a rejection letter dated 14th August, 2000 from the office of respondent No. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th September, 2000 on the ground that this is illegal, unfair, unconstitutional, arbitrary and has been passed with ulterior motive. As per the record he was born on 18th June, 1944 and he had completed 55 years on 18th June, 1999. The petitioner was considered fit for further service. He has earned more than 70% good reports. Two ACRs of the petitioner were average those were conveyed to him. The petitioner filed an appeal/representation which is still pending and in spite of that, the respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 20th September, 2000 (Annexure P-9) without any basis. The petitioner further alleges that no adverse remarks were conveyed to him, except the average report. The decision of the Government in prematurely retiring the petitioner is illegal. The petitioner had already crossed the age of 55 years on 30th June, 1999 when his case was considered for further service. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On this premises, the petitioner has made a prayer that the order of compulsory retirement dated 20th September, 2000 be set aside.
(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. They filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the petitioner was retired in public interest under Rule 5.32-A(C) of the Punjab C.S.R. Vol. II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab C.S.R. Vol. I Part I, as applicable to the Haryana State Government employees. According to these rules, the State Government has the right to retire a public servant on attaining the age of 50/55 years as the case may be by giving him notice of less than 3 months in writing. Before passing the impugned order, the annual confidential reports of the petitioner from 1988-89 to 1997-98 were considered by the Officers Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana. Out of his last ten years annual confidential reports, 7 were good, 2 were average and 1 report was below average. Out of adverse reports, one pertained to the doubtful integrity of the petitioner. So it was considered desirable by the Committee to retire the petitioner under the provisions of the above-said rules. On merits, it is the stand of the respondents, that no legal and constitutional right of the petitioner has been infringed which could entitle him to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction. It was also maintained by the respondents that the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion as Superintendent Jail in the year 1996, but he was not found suitable for promotion to the said post w.e.f. 5.1.1995 the date when Shri Daya Nand was promoted. The integrity of the petitioner was doubtful for the year 1990-91 and, therefore, he was compulsorily retired. With this broad defence, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.;