M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 4.1.2005 (P -17) whereby the petitioner has been retired prematurely from service in public interest as per the provisions of Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume -I, Part -I read with Rule 5.32 -A(c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume -II (as applicable to Haryana) (for brevity, 'the Rules'). The aforementioned impugned order has been actuated on the basis of the recommendations, dated 16.7.2004, of the Officers' Committee constituted to review the cases of officers of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) for their retention in Government service beyond the age of 50 years. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondent State to allow the petitioner to continue working as such till attaining the age of superannuation.
(2.) FACTS of the case may be first noticed. The petitioner belongs to the 1980 Batch of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). It is claimed that he has held several important and sensitive assignments from time to time and his work and conduct has always been appreciated by his superiors on several occasions, details of which have been given in para Nos. 2 to 4 of the writ petition (P/1A to P/1K). It has been asserted that while the petitioner was posted as Managing Director of Bhuna Cooperative Sugar Mills, Hisar, with effect from 1.4.1993, he took some harsh steps against some erring officials of the mills who were creating hindrance in the smooth functioning of the mills due to their union activities. Due to this fact some anonymous complaints were made against the petitioner, however, the same were not proved as is evident from the letter dated 23.7.1994, inasmuch as, the allegations were inquired into by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar -cum -Chairman of the Sugar Mills (P -3).
(3.) IN the ACR for the year 1993 -94, the competent authority recorded adverse remarks against the petitioner, which were duly conveyed to him vide communication dated 5.6.1996 (P -4) and reads as under: - "The following adverse remarks have been incorporated in the Annual Confidential Report written for the year 1993 -94 when you were posted as Managing Director, Cooperative Sugar Mill, Bhuna : - There is still scope for bringing out latent potential in him. In the sphere of coordination and control, especially of subordinates the officer needs to exert himself more. During the period under report, despite executing to the fullest, the Sugar Mills failed to really take off, primarily, because of the excessive dependency and faith that Shri L.P.S. Tomar accorded to his subordinates. In an organization where the primary responsibility relates to men management; Shri L.P.S. Tomar failed miserably. If the mill is in a sorry state of affairs, it is largely because of this officer. He mismanaged the affairs of the mills so badly during his stay that I doubt if the mills can not be brought back on rails at all. He made no efforts to develop cane in the area. He always gave misleading and false information. Losses have been rising. He is totally unreliable. There have been serious complaints against him which were enquired and found true. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner himself has submitted some of the reports. All the complaints have now been sent to the Chief Secretary for detailed enquiry and further necessary action. It is my unfortunate duty to say that such officers are a blot in the name of the service. The appraisal report submitted by the officer even does not depict factually correct position. Therefore, I will grade him as a 'Below Average' officer with highly doubtful integrity." (Emphasis added) Vide letter dated 27.5.1996 (P -7), the petitioner was communicated the following adverse remarks which were recorded in the ACR for the year 1994 -95 : - "The following adverse remarks have been incorporated in the Annual Confidential Report written for the year 1993 -94 (1994 -95) when you were posted as Managing Director, Cooperative Sugar Mill, Bhuna : - During the period under report a large number of skeletons were discovered in the cupboard of Sh. L.P.S. Tomar necessitating a full -fledged inquiry, the results of which are yet to come in. Running a Sugar Mills in Primarily a man -management process since the primary in -put i.e. sugarcane comes from the field of farmers. Here, Shri Tomar enjoyed a very poor reputation, his control over his subordinate was also extremely poor as a result of which fictitious figures regarding fresh plantation made a mockery of the planning process. His knowledge of rules and regulations was also extremely poor as a result of which the Mills was put to a lot of unnecessary local complications. Regarding his integrity and honesty, there is a big question mark of doubt which will remain till the result of the pending inquiry directed against him are not moved. I broadly agree with the views of the Reporting Officer. However, since I have looked into his work for very close quarters, I have found his working as most scandalous. I doubt if he has done anything right in the mills. A case of serious irregularities is already under enquiry and another case of blatant violation of law and misuse of position has come to light. In fact, I am of considered opinion that if his entire working is investigated, more serious irregularities and malpractices would come to light. In fact, such an officer is a blot on the name of the services and is absolutely unfit to be posted in a commercial organization. For him, law, rules and regulations have no meaning and has considered the mills as his field. His reputation for honesty and integrity has been very bad. Therefore, I would grade him as a 'Below Average' Officer." (Emphasis added) On 8.8.1996, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, against the averse remarks recorded for the year 1993 -94, which was rejected being time barred, vide order dated 18.10.1996 (P -6). Against the adverse remarks recorded for the year 1994 -95, the petitioner made another appeal dated 28.7.1996 (P -8), which was also rejected being time barred, vide separate order dated 18.10.1996 (P -9).;