- (1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated October 29, 1993 retiring the petitioner from Government service prematurely at the stage of review at 55 years.
(2.) This Court feels very sorry for the petitioner to read the summary of his ACRs for the period 1962-63 and 1992-93 which leave hardly any manner of doubt that the petitioner was grossly wronged in retiring him before superannuation by the decision taken under the provisions of Rule 3(1) (a) (b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 retiring the petitioner from Government service prematurely which is entirely perverse and irrational. He was paid three months advance pay in lieu of notice as required by the Rules. The Financial Commissioner Taxation & Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Excise and Taxation has ostensibly passed the order in public interest. Though the opinion of the competent authority is subjective in nature but the decision has to rest on objective criteria in evaluation of the entire service record with emphasis on the graph of more recent entries. The law on the subject of premature retirement/compulsory retirement has been settled in Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr, 1992 AIR(SC) 1020 and needs no elaboration. The principle laid down therein would not support the conclusion that the petitioner had been rendered dead wood, inefficient or a drone and a parasite on the administration in the Excise & Taxation Department or of no continued utility in government service.
(3.) The summary of ACRs has been produced by the State in its reply at Annex R-1 at pg. 58 of the paper-book which speaks for itself. They are reproduced below:- JUDGEMENT_89_LAWS(P&H)4_2016_1.html;