M.R.Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was born on June 26, 1918, was appointed as an Excise Sub Inspector by the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab dated July 12, 1947 (Annexure P/1) and having been promoted as Excise Inspector in January 1964, was confirmed as such with effect from April 1, 1966, by the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, dated May 8/15, 1959 (Annexure P/2). Three months' notice (Annexure P/3A) dated July 7, 1973, was served upon the petitioner (which was received by him on July 13, 1973) under Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. The notice was sent to the petitioner as an enclosure memorandum dated July II, 1973, (Annexure P/3) from the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, wherein it was stated that the original memorandum of the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, received through Excise and Taxation Commissioner Punjab, Patiala was being sent to the petitioner. The notice itself (Annexure P 3/A) addressed to the petitioner purported to have been issued under the signatures of the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, in the Excise and Taxation Department, The body of the notice was in the following words: - - As require by Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, as amended from time to time the Governor of Punjab is pleased to serve upon you three months notice of retirement from the date of receipt of this communication, and you will be deemed to have retired from service on the expiry of the aforesaid period.
(2.) THE representations of the petitioner against his retirement at the age of 55 years in pursuance of the above -quoted notice not having borne any fruit, the petitioner came to this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said notice R.N. Mittal, J. and myself admitted this case to a Division Bench on October 31, 1973, as the petitioner placed reliance on two different Single Bench Judgments of this Court in support of the proposition that the notice of retirement (Annexure P 3/A) was illegal and ineffective as it had emanated from the Punjab Government instead of having been issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, who was his appointing authority, and we thought that the said two Single Bench judgments needed reconsideration. Status quo was ordered by the Motion Bench to be maintained regarding the petitioner and that order has remained in force till now. Though another minor point is mentioned in the writ petition, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his, arguments to the abovementioned legal ground only in the affidavit of Shri L.C. Kapur, P.C.S. Administrative Officer, Excise and Taxation Commissioner's Officer Punjab, Patiala, filed by wav of return on behalf of the respondents, it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab and his services are governed by the Punjab Excise Subordinate Services Rules, 1943, and also by the Punjab Civil Services Rules It has, however, been pointed out that though the order of retirement has been conveyed by the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, the said order was passed on the recommendation of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, himself. It has been reiterated in the return that the petitioner has been retired from service by the Government on the recommendation of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, and the order of retirement was merely conveyed by the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department. On that basis, it has been urged that the contention about the notice of retirement being illegal is not tenable.
(3.) IN support of the above mentioned averment made in the return, Mr. Iqbal Singh Tiwana. Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab, has produced before us the original relevant file of the Punjab Government. The relevant portions of the file have been 'read over in Court in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner. The correspondence has even been shown to Mr. M.R. Agnihotri. This file shows that the Government was considering the question of certain promotions in connection with which the Character Roll of the petitioner had also gone to the Government, but was returned to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner with the Government's letter dated March 27, 1973. Thereafter on April 16, 1973, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner wrote to the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department in his memorandum No. 1101/E. 1 as below: - - Shri Karnail Singh, Excise Inspector is attaining the age of 55 years on 25th June, 1973, his date of birth being 26th June, 1918. His appointing authority is Government. 2. Attention is invited to Punjab Government letter No. 4776 -3 -GS(1) 64/15823, dated the 19th May, 1974 and No. 2018 -SII (2) 71/16458, dated the 30th June, 1971 wherein it is laid down that the Appointing Authority may retire a Government Servant after he attains the age of 55 years on 3 months Notice without assigning any reason keeping in view the service record of the official It has further been laid down in these instructions that even a single adverse remark on integrity of a Government employee should be sufficient for retiring him prematurely on attaining the age of 55 years. 3. A summary of service record of Shri Karnail Singh Excise Inspector, is enclosed He has earned two adverse remarks on integrity during the year 1957 -68 and 1971 -72. Besides two charge sheets (one under rule 3 Major penalty and second under rule 10 minor penalty) are pending against him. 4. In view of the above, it is recommended that Shri Karnail Singh, Excise Inspector may be retired from service at the age of 55 years on 25th June, 1973 (A N).;