- (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Additional Assistant Engineer with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (for short, 'the Corporation'), has approached this court impugning the order dated 20.5.2011, whereby he has been prematurely retired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Lineman on 9.2.1978. He was promoted as Junior Engineer in October, 1981. On 10.7.2007, he was promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer. It is at this stage that the petitioner was pre-maturely retired unceremoniously, which is the result of vindictiveness on the part of respondent No. 3. On 22.3.2011, the petitioner was transferred to Aggar Nagar Division, however, he was not permitted to join service there on the instructions of respondent No. 3. When his representations and even legal notice got issued to the authorities did not yield any result, he had to approach this court by filing C.W.P. No. 7935 of 2011, which was disposed of on 5.5.2011 directing the authorities to decide the legal notice within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The authorities were also directed to permit the petitioner to join at the place of posting in case order of transfer was still operative. On 12.5.2011, the petitioner was permitted to join. Thereafter, immediately respondent No. 3 became inimical to the petitioner and passed the impugned order on 20.5.2011 prematurely retiring him without following due procedure and without considering the service record of the petitioner. He was in haste in passing the order for the reason that he himself was to retire on 31.5.2011.
(2.) While referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishments, which are referred to in the impugned order, were minor punishments which were inflicted on him prior to his promotion as Additional Assistant Engineer in the year 2007. The same had lost significance. None of the punishments was such which could be made the basis for forming an opinion that the petitioner is a dead wood and should not be allowed to continue in service. In fact, the petitioner had already attained the age of 55 years in October, 2009, whereas his case for extension in service was considered in May, 2011, when he had only 1-1/2 years of service left before his retirement on superannuation, which is due on 31.10.2012. The report referred to in the impugned order dated 20.5.2011 is procured one, as the petitioner had worked with the officer concerned merely for a period of 7-8 days.
(3.) A reference has been made to the instructions dated 24.8.1995 and 5.9.2002 for taking action against the petitioner. While referring to the instructions dated 24.8.1995, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same provide for constitution of a Committee to scrutinise the record of the employee for making recommendations to the competent authority in the Corporation. Entire record of the employee concerned including performance, reputation, personality traits, mental and physical fitness, integrity as well as over-all grades earned in the ACRs as also the disciplinary cases pending against the employee are required to be considered. The Committee, in its proceedings, is required to broadly indicate the basis on which it comes to the conclusion that the employee should not be retained in service. Though earlier one of the clause in the policy was that even an average employees may be weeded out, however, the same was deleted.;