- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the notice of premature retirement from Government service as contained in order No. 8/74/91-5HBI/29692, dated November 8, 1993 issued under orders of the Governor of Punjab by the Additional Secretary Health (O), Government of Punjab, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chandigarh, in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The Governor of Punjab took a decision to retire the petitioner prematurely under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(A) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (for short, the Rules) and three months' notice as contemplated under the Rules was issued to him. The same reads thus :- "Whereas there are adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1970-71 and 1973-74 of Dr. Santokh Singh, Service No. 780, Medical Officer now posted at Subsidiary Health Centre, Surja (Distt. Jalandhar) wherein his integrity has been recorded as doubtful. Whereas the above adverse remarks about doubtful integrity were conveyed to the Doctor by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, vide his letter No. E2-Pb-72/2614, dated 17.2.92 and No. 4E-II-76/9867 dated 9.6.1976 respectively and the doctor did not submit any representation against the above adverse remarks and, therefore, the adverse remarks remain intact. Whereas as per the Government instructions a Government employee, who has attained the age of 50 years of completed 25 years service, can be retired compulsorily on the basis of a single entry of doubtful integrity. Whereas under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(A) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 and instructions circulated vide Govt. letter No. 6520-IS-II-75/38581, dated 26th July, 1975, it has been decided to retire prematurely Dr. Santokh Singh, Service No. 780, Medical Officer, now posted at Subsidiary Health Centre, Surja (Distt. Jalandhar). Now, therefore, the doctor is given 3 months notice for premature retirement from the date of issue." When the writ petition came up for motion hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1970-71 were conveyed to the petitioner by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, through latter No. E.2.Pb- 72/2614 dated February 17, 1992, after a lapse of more than twelve years. The submission was borne out from the notice under challenge. We accordingly issued notice of motion to the respondents.
(3.) In response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. He has placed before us a copy of the summary of the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the years from 1970-71 to 1991-92. The same reads thus :- JUDGEMENT_126_LAWS(P&H)2_1994(1).html;