P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed to impugn the order dated 27.7.1994 vide which the petitioner was prematurely retired from service. The petitioner had joined the service of the respondent Board as a Clerk on 1.10.1955. He was due to attain the age of superannuation on 30.11.1995. However he was compulsorily retired on 27.7.1994 when he was about 57 years of age. It is this order of compulsory retirement which is under challenge in this revision petition.
(2.) At this stage it would be apposite to reproduce the order of retirement which is as hereunder : "The Board in its meeting held on 27.7.1994 considered the case for retention in service in respect of Shri R.D. Goel, Senior Accounts Officer beyond the age of 55 years which he has attained on 6.11.1992, his date of birth being 7.11.1937, in terms of rule 3.26 (d) of CSR Vol. I Part I read with the rule 5.32 (c) of CSR Vol. II. After considering the service record of the Officer, the Board noted that he possess 68.75% 'good' reports for the period from 28.1.1980 to 31.3.1992 as against the requirement of 70% 'good' reports. Percentage of his good reports from 28.1.1980 to 12.2.1985 is 83% against the requirement of 50%. Percentage of good reports for the period from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1992 is 64.3% against the requirement of 70%. Thus the Board noted that Shri R.D. Goel does not possess the required number of 'good' reports for being retained in the service of the Board. 2. It was further noted by the Board that the following punishments were awarded to Shri R.D. Goel, Sr. Accounts Officer : i) A letter of advice had been issued to him vide memo No. Ch. 228/EBG-203 dated 14.6.1982 for releasing payment of M/s Nicko, Calcutta towards material purchased from them without ascertaining that some defective material had been received while posted in Workshop, Dhulkote, in 1980. ii) An amount of Rs. 3249.67 paise being one third of the total loss of Rs. 9,749/- suffered by the Board in the disposal of 154 Nos. surveyed off transformers had been decided to be recovered from the salary of Shri R.D. Goel, as he failed to safeguard the financial interests of the Board in giving concurrence to the break-up prices of the various lots of the material pre-audited by him and also failed to advise the C.O.S. while fixing the price of the various lots of the material as he was posted in C.O.S. Hisar, and was member of disposal committee and representative of Accounts and Finance vide office order No. 35/Conf. 3029 dated 18.2.1994. iii) His name is involved in irregularities relating to Civil Misc. Works PTPS, Panipat in awarding a contract to M/s Raj Kishan and Company during 1984 and subsequent increase of scope of contract in December, 1986. 3. Taking into consideration the above service record of Shri R.D. Goel, Senior Accounts Officer and punishment awarded, it has been decided by the Board to retire him from Board's service with immediate effect in terms of Rule 3.26 (d) of C.S.R. Vol. I Part- I read with rule 5.32 (c) of C.S.R. Vol. II. It has also been decided by the Board to pay him pay and allowances in lieu of 3 months notice period. 4. Pursuant to above, Shri R.D. Goel, Senior Accounts Officer, office of the E.I.C./D & P, HSEB, Hisar is hereby retired from Board's service in Public interest with immediate effect. A cheque bearing No. CC/F 027939 dated 27.7.1994 drawn on State Bank of Patiala payable at Hisar for Rs. 28425/- in lieu of 3 months notice period in favour of Shri R.D. Goel, Senior Accounts Officer is sent along with this order." A reading of this order of retirement would show that the Board has taken into consideration the confidential reports of the petitioner up to 31.3.1992. On an assessment of the record from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1992, the Board came to the conclusion that since the petitioner possessed only 64.3% 'Good' reports against the requirement of 70% he could not be retained in service. Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the instructions circulated by the respondent-Board dealing with the cases of retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years. He states that a reading of the instructions would show that the record of last ten years must be taken into account while treating the case of premature retirement. The relevant instructions dated 14.10.1986 referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as hereunder : "Instances have come to notice where certain authorities are allowing retention to the employees after taking into consideration 70% or 50% as 'Good' reports from the available qualification reports' which is utterly against the spirit of the instructions, referred to above. Such a practice should be dispensed with in future, and 70% or 50% of total actual last 10 years reports must be taken into account." Mr. Malik submits that if record up to 31.3.1994 was taken into consideration he would have more than 70% 'Good' reports. For this purpose, he has shown my attention to a document Annexure R-I which is a memorandum prepared by Haryana State Electricity Board for consideration of the case of the petitioner for being retained beyond the age of 55 years. Therein it has been noted that the petitioner's report from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994 was 'Good'. Prior to that the petitioner had been on leave from 29.6.1992 to 20.9.1992 and from 21.9.1992 to 31.3.1993 his report was 'Good'. Therefore Mr. Malik contends that the subsequent reports of the petitioner are 'Good' and if these are taken into consideration then from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1994 the petitioner would have more than 70% 'Good' reports. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner I find merit in the same. Once the Board had permitted the petitioner to continue the service for two years after attaining the age of 55 years and two subsequent reports have been recorded then there was no justification with the Board to exclude those reports from consideration. Those were in fact the latest reports and most relevant. It has been repeatedly held by the courts that more emphasis should be placed on the record of immediately preceding the date of retirement. In the present case if the Board was to consider the record for the last 10 years and they rightly started considering it from 1.4.1985 onwards, it should have been considered up to 31.3.1994. On this basis the petitioner would have more than 70% 'Good' reports.
(3.) In this situation therefore since the petitioner has more than 70% 'Good' reports he could not have been retired prematurely as per Government instructions.;