Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by Harchand Singh, petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated October 1, 1975, prematurely retiring him under Rule 3 (1) (a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be called the Rules).
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sales Tax Sub-Inspector on March 3, 1950, in the erstwhile State- of PEPSU. He was promoted to the post of Taxation Inspector on November 1, 19.66. He was again promoted to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on March 5, 1975 and he joined the said post on March 10, 1975. Before the merger of erstwhile Pepsu with Punjab on November 1, 1956, adverse confidential reports were not conveyed in erstwhile PEPSU. The petitioner was awarded adverse report for the years 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1970-71. On a representation made by the petitioner, all these adverse entries were expunged by the Excise and Taxation Minister by his order dated September 24, 1974, a copy of which is Annexure P-l to the writ petition. The operative part of which is reproduced below:-- "It is really strange that while on one hand, very serious charges have been levied against Shri Harchand Singh, but on the other hand, he has been either exonerated or the cases have been filed. In spite of these exonerations, the enquiries have been proceeding for which I do not find any reason. I also find that in support of the exonerations, no entries have been made in this ACR for year 1971-72(?) report (Report) (?) is contrary to the Government instructions of 1-3-1961." On an earlier representation by the petitioner, the Excise and Taxation Minister had also passed an order on April 24, 1974, in his favour a copy of which is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. The relevant part of that order is as follows:- "This question has another very serious aspect, i.e. even after expiry of 5/6 years the enquiry was not finally disposed of. Even from that if it is concluded that continuous efforts are being made to obstruct the promotion of Shri Harchand; Singh then it would not be wrong. In my view, when once an enquiry has been completed then there is no necessity for holding second enquiry." The above abstracted order of the Excise and Taxation Minister was also agreed to by the Chief Minister.
(3.) It has been averred in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that respondent No. 3, Shri Herdial Singh Chetwal Administration Officer, Excise and Taxation Commissioner's Officer, Patiala, was biased against him and that the record for the purpose of premature retirement of the petitioner was prepared, processed and tabulated by the said respondent. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, a number of allegations of mala fides, have been adverted to against respondent No. 3. Those allegations have been denied by respondent No. 3 in his affidavit. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on March 5, 1975 and the impugned order of premature retirement, a copy of which is Annexure P-5 was passed against the petitioner by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, on October 1, 1975, that is, within a period of seven months. It is admitted in the affidavit filed in reply by Shri O. P. Garg, Administrative Officer, Excise and Taxation Commissioner's Office, Patiala, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that adverse entries against the petitioner for the years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, had not 'been conveyed to the petitioner. It is however, stated that the subsequent adverse remarks for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 had been conveyed to the petitioner. It is also admitted that adverse remarks for the 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1970-71, against the petitioner had been expunged on a representation by him. It was also stated that there were adverse remarks for the year 1971-72 against the petitioner and the same had been conveyed to him. In paragraph 13 of the reply, it is stated as under:-- "The petitioner's record has been thoroughly unsatisfactory. In spite of the entries having been expunged there are still a good number of adverse entries regarding his work, conduct and integrity." It is stated in paragraph 14 of the reply that respondent No. 1 had duly consider-ed the record of the petitioner and had come to the conclusion that it w.as in pub-lic interest to retire the petitioner prematurely. In paragraph 15 of the reply, if is stated that a number of complaints against the petitioner were received after his promotion on March 5, 1975.;