- (1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 8.12.2005. (P-7) which is a notice served on the petitioner that he shall stand retired from service on the expiry of the three months from the date of receipt of the order by him. The aforementioned notice has been issued in pursuance to provisions contained in Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume-II read with Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume-I, Part-I (as application to Haryana). Accordingly the petitioner has been retired w.e.f. 20.3.2006 after reinstating him. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has been facing a charge sheet and was placed under suspension on 8.11.2004 (P-3) and charge sheet against him was issued on 27.12.2004 (P-4). A perusal of the record produced by the respondents in the written statement from 1993-94 onward shows that he has earned adverse remarks for the period from 23.4.1993 to 31.3.1994 as Below Average and his integrity was considered doubtful. His subsequent report from the year 1994 till the year 2002-2003 has been Good/Very Good. However, he has been issued a charge sheet in the year 2004 levelling allegation that he has embezzled an amount of Rs. 2,73,886/during the period commencing from 1.7.1992 to 30.6.2003. A regular departmental enquiry has already been held and the action thereon was in progress.
(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the order of premature retirement of the petitioner deserves to be upheld. It is well settled that if integrity of an employee is doubted even once during his service career then such an employee may have to be chopped off as a deadwood, which is in larger public interest. The aforementioned proposition has repeatedly been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In Baikuntha Nath Das V/s. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 2 SCC 299, the whole earlier case law was reviewed by Their Lordships and following five propositions were extracted, which are as under: "34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no reasonable person would from the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of the service before taking a decision in the matter-of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference." It is equally well settled that once there is an entry of 'integrity doubtful' in the service record of an employee then it is considered to be in larger public interest to retire such a person prematurely. In that regard, reliance may be placed to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik, 1995 6 SCC 442and Jugal Chandra Saikia V/s. State of Assam, 2003 4 SCC 59. In para 5 of the judgment in Jugal Chandra Saikia's case it has been noticed that the review committee had concluded that the delinquent employee had out lived its utility and was of doubtful integrity. In Jugal Chandra Saikia's case , Hon'ble the Supreme has followed and applied the principles of law as laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das's case . The controversy with regard to communication or non-communication of the adverse report regarding integrity of the petitioner would not survive in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das's case . In the proposition (v) as extracted above, it has been categorically observed that the non- communication of adverse report alone cannot constitute a basis for interference of the Court.
(3.) There is no merit in this petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed.;