K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THE writ petition challenges the order of compulsory retirement inflicted on the petitioner. The ground of attack on the impugned order is that the petitioner had not completed 55 years and as per the Punjab Civil Service Rules, compulsory retirement could be issued against a public servant only if he had attained the age of 55 years if he is in Class C service. The age limit of 50 years, according to the petitioner, would be applicable only to Class A and B and he being a Class C servant, the age limit was only 55 years before he could be compulsory retired.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that the petitioner had already been found guilty of charges involving financial improprieties and on two occasions his increments had been stopped with cumulative effect. The learned counsel points out that the compulsory retirement could be made against an employee also on the ground of lack of integrity and by virtue of the proceedings of the Chief Secretary to the Government issued to all the Departments on 12.12.1988, the cases where the punishment had been awarded on the basis of charges which reflected on lack of integrity of an employee, they were also to be considered as 'integrity doubtful' cases for taking appropriate decision on compulsory retirement. The learned counsel urged that by a resolution passed agenda No. 13, a decision had been taken to review the cases of Board employees at the age of 50 when there were reports of facts which have come to notice that reflected adversely upon the integrity of the officers.
(3.) WHILE I am prepared to accede to the contention that integrity issue could be taken as relevant for compulsory retirement when especially proved charges after inquiry had brought about issue of integrity. However, the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1966 specifically provided that Board employees would be governed by the said Rules and in respect of matters not specified in the said Rules, the Punjab Civil Service Rules alone would be applicable. It is an admitted case that the 1966 Service Rules do not contain provisions for compulsory retirement. If we must, therefore, resort only to the Punjab Civil Service Rules then, inevitably the provisions contained in the said Rules allowing for compulsory retirement for Class C employees obtain only at the age of 55 years and it could not be modified by a Board resolution. If the 1966 Service Rules themselves do not provide for such a course, unless there had been a change in the Punjab Civil Service Rules or specific change had been brought in the 1966 Rules, pursuant to the Board decision, it is not possible to give the effect to the order of compulsory retirement. The counsel for the petitioner points out that reference to 1966 Rules in the Agenda itself is erroneous and the relevant Rules were Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974. Rule 14 specifies that in respect of matters, which do not provide expressly in the 1974 Rules would be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The Rules were framed under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 and Section 43 of the Act empowers the State Government by notification to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. What is left to the Government to do through executive rules cannot be substituted by resolution of the Board to take effect as though they could override the Punjab Civil Service Rules.;