- (1.) The petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Jharna Chanda is a member of the Haryana Civil Medical Services Class-I. She is aggrieved by the order dated October 28, 1991 by which she was given a notice of three months under Rule 5.32-A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, read with rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, Part-I. She was informed that she shall stand relieved from service on the expiry of three months. The order has been challenged primarily as being arbitrary.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf,of the respondents, it has been inter alia ayerred that the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks for the year 1983-84 and her intergrity was also described as doubtful. The representation submitted by the petitioner against these remarks was rejected by the petitioner against these remarks was rejected by the Government after due consideration. The order of rejection was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated October 31, 1985. It has been further mentioned that the petitioner was due to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. February 1, 1986. Her case was considered, but she was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The petitioner's claim that her representation was pending has been specifically controverted and it has been averred that the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide Government letter dated 31.10.85 (Annexure R/2) and the same was conveyed to the petitioner vide registered letter No. 63/J(7)-4EII/14574 dated 19.12.1985 (Annexure P/4). The reminder dated 25.3.87 was also received in the office and the petitioner was replied by the department vide registered letter No. 63/J(7)-4EII-87/4626 dated 5.5.1987 (Annexure R/5)." Various other facts relating to the petitioner's performance have also been mentioned.
(3.) Under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, a civil servant normally retires on attaining the age of 58 years. However, in a case where the appropriate authority is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, a power has been reserved for ordering premature retirement by giving three months notice. The authority has to arrive at the conclusion that it is in public interest to retire the civil servant on the basis of some objective date. The power has to be exercised fairly and objectively. In tie present case, it is undeniable that the adverse remarks have been conveyed to the petitioner for the year 1983-84. Her integrity has been described as doubtful. She has not even been considered fit to cross the efficiency bar. If in such a situation, the appropriate authority has formed an opinion that it is in public interest to retire her. I find no infirmity in the action of the respondents.;