- (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Superintendent (Grade-I) in the office of the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, (for short 'H.U.D.A'), Panchkula, was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated January 30, 2008 (Annexure P-9), which is reproduced as below :- " Shri V.P. Bhardwaj, AEO (Now Superintendent Grade-I) working in the office of Legal Remembrancer, HUDA, Panchkula had completed his 55 years of age on 5.5.2007. His case for extension in service beyond the age of 55 years was placed before the Personnel Committee in its meeting held on October 10, 2007 and 12.12.2007. The Personnel Committee considered the case as per Government instructions issued from time to time. After considering the relevant personal service record of the officer it was observed that the acts of omission and commission alleged to have been committed by the officer stand proved. In one case concerning rescheduling of instalments of K.C Palace, Panchkula, the Personnel has already been issued Show Cause Notice for imposition of penalty of reduction in rank to which the reply has been submitted by the officer. The reply has been considered and the Committee has decided to confirm the penalty of reduction in rank for the reasons discussed against the agenda item. In the other case concerning plot No. 404, Sector 20, Panchkula, the Committee has decided to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement. The manner in which both these cases have been handled by the officer reflect adversely on the integrity of the officer. The committee, therefore, decided that it will not be judicious to recommend grant of extension of service beyond the age of 55 years to the officer. Therefore, in pursuance and compliance of the decision of the Personnel Committee and as per provisions contained in Rule 3.26 of Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part-I, Shri V.P. Bhardwaj, Superintendent Grade-I office of the L.R, HUDA, Panchkula is compulsory retired from HUDA services today i.e 30.1.2008 (AN). A cheque bearing No. 752998 dated 30.1.2008 for an amount of Rs. 54,774/- (Rupees fifty four thousand seven hundred and seventy four only) of ICICI Bank towards three months' pay and allowances is enclosed herewith."
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was never conveyed any adverse confidential report in his whole service career except the report for the period from June 14, 1989 to October 20, 1989. In the said report, the integrity of the petitioner was shown doubtful. The petitioner filed civil suit for expunging the said adverse remarks and the Civil Court vide judgment dated May 20, 2000, expunged the said adverse remarks. The department went in appeal against the judgment dated May 20, 2000, which was dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the Civil Court attained finality.
(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that he was also issued another charge-sheet dated November 24, 2003 on the following allegations :- " 1. That he suo-moto dealt the file of site No. 405, Sector 20, Panchkula instead of getting the case dealt through Branch. 2. That due to his suo-moto and unauthorized action HUDA has suffered financial loss and lost the case in DCF, Panchkula. 3. Misuse of official powers with ulterior motives and dereliction of duties.";