Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) The paper book is voluminous but the point involved in this case is short. It is, therefore, not necessary to notice the facts in detail.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 20, 1990 by which he was given a notice that he will retire from service with effect from December 29, 1990. This order reads as under:- "You, Head Constable Suresh Chand No. 158/FBD (Executive Clerk) is attaining the age of 55 years on 28.12.90. You have earned adverse remarks about your honesty for the period 14.4.80 to 31.3.81 and 8.12.89 to 31.3.90 in your confidential record. As such according to the Govt. instructions conveyed vide the Director General of Police, Haryana letter No. 7258-730/B-3 dated 2.9.83 your ACRs during the last 10 year's chequered record, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon has taken the decision vide his order No. 10027-8/A-2 dated 14.9.90 that you are not allowed to serve beyond the age of 55 years. As such, you are hereby served with 90 days notice that you will be presumed to retire from service after the expiry of this notice i.e. with effect from 29.12.1990 FN." A perusal of this order shows that it has been observed that the petitioner has earned adverse remarks about his honesty; that this annual confidential reports for the last 10 years are not satisfactory and that he has a 'chequered record'. Perse the order contains words which cast a stigma.
(3.) On a perusal of the personal file of the petitioner, I am satisfied that the Department had good reason to retire the petitioner. However, the order passed contains express words of stigma. It, therefore, ceases to be a simple order of retirement. This view finds support from the observation of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260. Madan Mohan Nagar was retired in accordance with the provisions of the rules on the ground that "he has outlived his utility." On a review of the case law, it was held that "there is no doubt that the order does cause a stigma on the respondent. "This view was reiterated in I.N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1264, wherein it was inter alia held that "this Court has consistently held that where the order directing compulsory retirement expressly contains words which cast a stigma on a Government servant, the order is equivalent to an orders of removal and action under Article 311 is necessary." In paragraph 7, there Lordships observed that "where an order requiring a Government servant to retire compulsory contains express words from which a stigma can be inferred, that order will amount to removal within the meaning of Article 311." In the present case, the express words cast a stigma. Any body who reads this order would conclude that the petitioner is not honest and that his record of service was bad. The case clearly falls within the rule laid down in the above noted two cases.;