- (1.) This State appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition 7896 of 1989 whereby the order dated June 6,1989 pre-maturely retiring the respondent from service has been quashed and he has been held to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The respondent Dr. Ved Bhushan (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') joined the Punjab Civil Medical Service (P.C.M.S.) Class II on January 1, 1964 and was thereafter promoted to PCMS Class I, on July 29,1979. During the year 1980-81, the petitioner was working under the direct control of the then Civil Surgeon, Bhatinda who as the reporting officer recorded the following adverse remarks on the work and conduct of the petitioner: "2. Ability a) Leadership : Poor leadership and initiative & b) Initiative tact. c) Tact. 3. Has he a good reputation for honesty : Honesty doubtful i) in dealing with in any present post medical reimbursement bills to Govt, employees. ii) in issuing of certificates of sickness to relatives of prisoners. iii) embezzlement of Govt, funds by claiming double T.A. Bills. Misuse of Medical AMA Part i)Matter has been enquired by Govt. and report under investigation by Joint Director Dr. Amarjit Singh. ii) Enquiry being conducted by Addl. Deputy Commissioner regarding issue of false certificates to relatives of prisoner. Temp, embezzlement of Govt, money, iii) Claimed doubled TA. Bill on 16.7.80 and 1.6.81 T.A. Bill to Mansa for Rs.60/- claimed twice. 4. Have the defects reproted been already : Yes, he does not obey order of brought to any other connection to the Civil Surgeon and D.H.S. notice of the officer concerned 5. General Assessment of work done vis-a- : Taken very little interest in F.P. vis Family Planning Programme. Programme. 6. Assessment of inclination towards : No inclination as team leader and community Health programms like F.P. motivator. Programme. 7. Remarks about work done to achieve the : Very poor performance in achieving F.P. target fixed by the State. trarget allotted to Civil Hospital, Bhatinda only 32% as comparted to 108% of District achieved." These adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab as per letter of October 12, 1981. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner filed a representation against these remarks and the same was rejected by the competent authority and the rejection was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated April 22,1985. When the petitioner was due to cross his efficiency bar with effect from August 1,1982 his case was considered with reference to his over-all service record and he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar which was withheld for one year upto August 1, 1983. It appears that the petitioner did not make such improvement in the following years and a look at the service record for the subsequent years shows that his over-all assessment by different reporting officers had been just Average/satisfactory. It may be mentioned that the State Government had constituted a High Powered Apex Committee~consisting of then Chief Secretary and Senior Officers of the rank of Financial Commissioners to review cases of pre-mature retirement of government employees. This committee in its meeting held on May 19,1989 perused the last 10 years service record of the petitioner including the adverse remarks recorded for the year 1980-81. It found that the petitioner had earned no good report and his work was average/satisfactory. The committee judged him all around as poor and recommend his premature retirement in the following words:- "The Committee adjudges his overall record as poor and considers that Dr. Ved Bhushan may be retired immediately in public interest." Since the petitioner had attained the age of fifty years, the State Government by an order dated June 6, 1989 retired him compulsorily in public interest with immediate effect in accordance with rule 3(i)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 and the Government instructions issued in this regard as per letter dated September 26,1975. He was paid three months salary in lieu of 3 months notice. It is this order of retirement that was impugned before the learned single Judge.
(3.) While challenging the aforesaid order what was urged before the learned Judge was that apart from the adverse remarks for the year 1980-81, the service record of the petitioner was blotless and that he worked with utmost integrity and devotion to duty. As regards the adverse entry for the year 1980-81 it was submitted that the reporting officer had given three reasons for doubting the honesty and integrity of the petitioner, namely, he was not honest (i) in dealing with the medical reimbursement bills to Government employees; (ii) in issuing certificates of sickness to relatives of prisoners, (iii) embezzled government funds by claiming double T.A. bills. The case of the petitioner was that as regards the first reason mentioned by the reporting officer, the matter of issuing false prescription slips to government employees for claiming medial reimbursement formed the subject matter of a First Information Report lodged by the Chief Engineer, Thermal Plant, Bhatinda on the basis of which he was tried by a criminal court under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code but was acquitted. The other two reasons mentioned in the report for the year 1980-81 were, according to the petitioner, also without any basis as the charges relating thereto were the subject matter of departmental enquiries in which the petitioner was completely exonerated. The argument before the learned Single Judge was that since all the three grounds mentioned by the reporting officer for doubting the integrity of the petitioner for the year 1980-81 had been found not to exist, the very basis of the adverse entry stood knocked off and there being no other adverse material on the record, the order of premature retirement could not be sustained. This contention found favour with the learned single Judge and the impugned order was consequently quashed. Hence the present appeal.;