Dr. Khazan Singh vs State of Haryana and others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 6.3.1995 retiring the petitioner compulsorily on his attaining the age of 55 years by issuing a writ of certiorari.

The petitioner was appointed as a veterinary Assistant on 3.5.1965 in the Animal Husbandry Department of Erstwhile Punjab State and on re-organisation of the State of Punjab, his services were allocated to the State of Haryana on 1.11.1966. Subsequently, the post of Veterinary Assistant was upgraded to that of Veterinary Surgeon on 1.2.1978. The petitioner was promoted as H.V.S. Class-II, (Senior Scale Officer) on ad hoc basis with effect from 1.5.1990. He was also granted the selection grade on 29.12.1993 and his pay was fixed from 1.4.1992. When the petitioner was posted at Nuh, an FIR bearing No. 10 dated 3.5.1994 was registered u/s 7(13) 49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated due to annoyance and enmity in regard to discharging his official duties sincerely and honestly. The registration of the FIR was based on unfounded allegations. The petitioner was arrested on 3.1.1994, but he was released on bail. The State moved an application for cancellation of bail and on the said application, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. Thereafter the petitioner applied to the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for bail which was allowed on 6.6.1994. The Haryana Government placed the petitioner under suspension on 3.1.1994 because of the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated on 6.3.1995, but on the same day, the petitioner was made to retire from service on payment of three months'' salary in lieu of notice purporting to exercise his powers under Rule 5.32A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II read with Section 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, part I as applicable to the employees of the State of Haryana. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 3.3.1939, He joined the department of Animal Husbandry on 3.3.1965 and in the normal course he would have retired on 31.3.1997. He further contended that the order of his premature retirement was passed on 6.3.1995, whereas the petitioner completed 55 years on 31.3.1994. According to the petitioner his service record is good and outstanding. There was nothing against him except the false and fabricated case implicating him u/s 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act while he was working as SDO (AH) at Nuh. He further contended that the action of the respondent department reinstating him on 6.3.1995 and simultaneously retiring him compulsorily on the same day is malafide, illegal and unconstitutional and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Since he did notjoir the duty after having been reinstated on 6.3.1995 and simultaneously order of compulsory retirement was passed, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner, was on duty when he was compulsorily retired. Therefore, it must be taken that he continued to be under suspension. Therefore the order of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside. He also contended that there is no provision under the rules that three months'' pay to be given in lieu of notice. According to the petitioner, he completed only 30 years of service on the date of his retirement. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of full pension and that the order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary and it also casts a stigma. The petitioner is, therefore, seeking to quash the order compulsorily retiring him from service.

There is no dispute of the fact that the Govt. employee can be compulsorily retired from service under Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable in the State of Haryana after he attained the age of 55 years. Admittedly, the petitioner attained the age of 55 years. The order of compulsory retirement which is annexed as Annexure-7 with the writ petition reads as follows :

"Whereas it has been decided by the Government to retire Dr. Khajan Singh, Sub Divisional Officer (AH), Department of Animal Husbandry, Haryana, from service in the public interest.

Now, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in the note below Rule 5.32-A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II read with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part-1, as applicable to the employees of the State of Haryana, the Government hereby retires. Dr. Khajan Singh from service with effect from the date of communication to him of this order on payment of three months'' salary and allowances in lieu of notice as required by Rule 5.32A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II.

Demand Draft No. 392759 dated 17.2.1995 drawn in his favour on the State Bank of India, towards payment of three months'' salary is enclosed."

A reading of the order does not show thatany stigma is attached to it. The order retiring the petitioner was passed in public interest in accordance with Rules 5.32-A(c) read with rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services, Vol. 1. Parti as applicable to the employees of the State of Haryana.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the order Annexure P-7 is a stigmatised order since it was the result of the criminal case registered against the petitioner in FIR No. 10 dated 3.1.1994 for the offence u/s 7, 13, 49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act, But the order (Annexure P-7) does not make any reference to the criminal chaige. There is no gain saying that the authorities can take into account the conduct, performance and integrity of the officer before exercising the power under Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part 1. When the petitioner himself admits that a criminal case was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it cannot be said that the exercise of the power is in any way illegal. It is pertinent to note that no malafide have been attributed to the authority who passed the order of compulsory retirement. Rule 3.26(d) does not envisage of giving any reason for invoking the powers therein. The only thing is that the authority has to satisfy that the continuance of the officer beyond the age of 55 years is not in public interest depending upon his conduct and performance. Further the order of compulsory retirement also shows that three months'' salary has been paid to the petitioner by a demand draft dated 17.2.1995. The material has been placed before this Court to show that the services of the petitioner have been terminated after considering the overall performance of the petitioner. When the order of compulsory retirement is passed in accordance with the rules, this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the same.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, . But the facts in that case were different from the facts in the present case. It is no doubt true as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision that the order of compulsory retirement is liable to be upset if no requisite opinion was found on the basis of the total evolution of the record or it was based on collateral grounds or the decision is arbitrary. But it is equally true as held by the Apex Court in C. D. Aliwadi v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1004, that if the compulsory retirement had been based on the facts that the appellant did not have unblemished record of service, the compulsory retirement can be upheld. In the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for tlue petitioner in Ramachandra Raju''s case (supra), it has been held that though the order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government, the Government shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter even attaching more importance to record and performance during the later years. The record so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential record, character rolls both favourable and adverse. The order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed on mere showing that while passing it, uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration. Further this does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. Though the Court would not examine the matter as an Appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is malafide or passed on no evidence or it is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would from the requisite opinion on the given material in short if it is found to be a perverse order, the remedy under Article 226 is an important safeguard, since the remedy is an effective check against arbitrary malafide or perverse actions.

It is settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the Govt. employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension, the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency,

On the basis of the material placed before me, I am satisfied that the order of compulsory retirement is neither arbitrary nor perverse. There is sufficient material on record to show that the order of compulsory retirement is based on a proper appreciation of record and the work, performance and integrity of the officer concerned. I do not, therefore, find any grounds warranting interference with the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner on attainment the age of 55 years.

The result is, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.