- (1.) Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order, Annexure P- 1, dated 13.12.1991 vide which, the Director of Primary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner in view of Rule 3.26 of CSR Volume-I Part I read with Rule 5.32 A(c) and note thereunder of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, as applicable to the State of Haryana, on his attaining the age of 55 years. With a view to find out as to whether the petitioner had such service record that he can be asked to be prematurely retired, it is essential to examine his service record. It is conceded position under the law that service record of an employee, immediately preceding the date of compulsory retirement, is the most crucial and, thus, has necessarily to be examined. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, his service record has been given as follows : (i) That the work and conduct and service record of the petitioner during last 10 years is not upto the mark. (ii) Adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs of the petitioner for the year 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1989-90 recorded by B.E.O Rai, were conveyed to the petitioner. (iii) The whole of the service record of the petitioner is not satisfactory and some of the irregularities are as under : (a) That the petitioner was transferred from G.P.S. Khatkar to G.S.S.S. Murthal on 20.4.1985 but he did not join there and remained absent from duty. (b) That as and when he has been transferred from one place to another, he has never handed over the charge of the school. (c) That he was placed under suspension by the respondent No.2 and was served with a charge sheet, but he has not given his reply in this respect till now. (d) That he always disobeyed the orders of the superiors for example the petitioner was asked to give his explanation regarding issuing of unauthorised S.L.C. to the students who were declared failed in Vth class examination and the petitioner being the In-charge of the school issued S.L.C. of Vth class passed, but the petitioner refused to receive the show cause notice/letter (copy of the same is attached herewith). (e) That he issued school leaving certificate during the year 1985 for which he was not competent to do so (details given in Annexure R-IV)." I have examined Confidential Reports of the petitioner, Annexures R-I to R-III. Even if, other service record of the petitioner is not examined, from a (sic), as reproduced above, three Confidential Reports of the petitioner, in considered view of this Court, were enough to pass order of his compulsory retirement. in the A.C.R. for the year 1985-86, Annexure R-1, 'punctuality and integrity' of the petitioner have been recorded as 'below average'. It has also been recorded that he comes late and remains absent and did not hand-over the charge. His overall assessment has been recorded as 'below average.' In the A.C.R. for the year 1987-88, Annexure R-II, whereas, 'punctuality' has been recorded as 'below average', his 'integrity' has been recorded as average and with regard to contribution in improvement of the school, it has been mentioned that he had made no improvement. Overall assessment once over again has been given as below average. In the A.C.R. for the year 1989-90; Annexure R-III, against the column pertaining to contribution in improvement of school, it is mentioned that the petitioner made no contribution. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner did not issue 10 certificates of 5th Class to those students, who were declared fail in March, 1989. Overall assessment has been done as average.
(2.) On the basis of adverse entries recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports, Annexures R-I to R-III, no case is made out for quashing order, Annexure P-I, impugned in the present petition.
(3.) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that order of voluntary retirement cannot entail an order of stoppage of pensionary and other post retiral benefits and the petitioner has not been made-over any post retiral benefits till date from time, order, Annexure P-I, was passed. There is no averment made in the wit petition that the petitioner has not been paid any post retiral benefits. It appears to this Court that this averment could not be Trade because the petitioner could not have been aware at the time present petition was filed that he would not be paid his post retiral benefits. There cannot be any dispute that order of compulsory retirement does not visit an employee with such a consequence as that he may not be even entitled to the post retiral benefits. If, therefore, the respondents have not paid post retiral benefits including the pension to the petitioner, same shall be made-over to him.;