H.C. Gargi Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.3035 of 1986.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3046 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3046 of 1985)
Petitioner: H.C. Gargi
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.3035 of 1986.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3046 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3046 of 1985)
Judges: A.P.SEN & B.C.RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 01, 1986
Appearances:
Mrs. Shobha Diskhit, Adv. for the Appellant.
Mr. O.P. Sharma, Mr. S.U. Singh and Mr. C.V. Subba, Advs. for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.1, Part I, Rules 3, 25 (d) – Compulsory retirement in public interest – Test laid down in the Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Col.J.N.Singh & Anr.- Impugned order of compulsory retirement of appellant struck down as being arbi-trary.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. In this case, the appellant who was an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Haryana, after 35 years of service has been compulsorily retired in public interest by the State Government of Haryana by impugned order dated February 1, 1985 purporting to act under Rule 3.25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Vol. 1, Part I. From the record of service it appears that based upon the report of the Review Committee in 1979, the appellant was retained in service after he attained the age of 50 years and thereafter on the report of the second Review Committee in 1983, he was continued in service on his attainment of the age of 55 years, on the basis of his record of service which was uniformly good right from the year 1964-65 to the year 1981-1982. When he was just on the verge of retirement, the State Government directed his cornpulsory retirement under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules on the basis of two adverse entries made by the then Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Although the appellant pleaded, that he earned a good report from the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner who had opportunity to watch his performance during the years in question, the State Government in the return filed before the High Court contested the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was retired under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules as the adverse entries made by the Commissioner showed that he was of doubtful integrity. This however is not borne out by the two adverse entries made by the Commissioner showing that his performance in the Year 1982-83 was ‘average’ and that in the year 1983-84 ‘below average’ which did not pertain to his integrity. The appellant alleged that he had incurred the displeasure of the Commissioner for certain reasons. While his representation against the adverse entries made by the Commissioner was pending consideration, the government passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement and thereafter rejected the representation. The power of compulsory retirement under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. The test in such cases is public interest as laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha*1. It does not appear that there was any material on the basis of which the State Government could have formed an opinion that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire the appellant at the age of 57 years. There was really no justification for his compulsory retirement in public interest. The impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules must ther fore be struck down as being arbitrary.
3. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order passed by the State Gvernment dated February 1, 1985 for compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 3.25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules is quashed and he shall be treated as having retired from service on attaining his normal age of superannuation on April 30, 1986, and shall be entitled to his pensionary benefits upon that basis. Costs quantified at Rs.1000.
Appeal allowed.
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. In this case, the appellant who was an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Haryana, after 35 years of service has been compulsorily retired in public interest by the State Government of Haryana by impugned order dated February 1, 1985 purporting to act under Rule 3.25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Vol. 1, Part I. From the record of service it appears that based upon the report of the Review Committee in 1979, the appellant was retained in service after he attained the age of 50 years and thereafter on the report of the second Review Committee in 1983, he was continued in service on his attainment of the age of 55 years, on the basis of his record of service which was uniformly good right from the year 1964-65 to the year 1981-1982. When he was just on the verge of retirement, the State Government directed his cornpulsory retirement under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules on the basis of two adverse entries made by the then Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Although the appellant pleaded, that he earned a good report from the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner who had opportunity to watch his performance during the years in question, the State Government in the return filed before the High Court contested the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was retired under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules as the adverse entries made by the Commissioner showed that he was of doubtful integrity. This however is not borne out by the two adverse entries made by the Commissioner showing that his performance in the Year 1982-83 was ‘average’ and that in the year 1983-84 ‘below average’ which did not pertain to his integrity. The appellant alleged that he had incurred the displeasure of the Commissioner for certain reasons. While his representation against the adverse entries made by the Commissioner was pending consideration, the government passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement and thereafter rejected the representation. The power of compulsory retirement under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. The test in such cases is public interest as laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha*1. It does not appear that there was any material on the basis of which the State Government could have formed an opinion that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire the appellant at the age of 57 years. There was really no justification for his compulsory retirement in public interest. The impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 3.25(d) of the Rules must ther fore be struck down as being arbitrary.
3. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order passed by the State Gvernment dated February 1, 1985 for compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 3.25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules is quashed and he shall be treated as having retired from service on attaining his normal age of superannuation on April 30, 1986, and shall be entitled to his pensionary benefits upon that basis. Costs quantified at Rs.1000.
Appeal allowed.
