Shamsher Kaur vs The State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—Aggrieved by order Annexure P-1,--vide which applying Rule 5.32(C) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume, II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Government of Haryana, in the public interest, ordered pre-mature retirement, the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The facts as culled out from the pleadings of the parties would reveal that the Petitioner joined the Education Department on 19th October, 1977. She was at the relevant time Lecturer in Botany, posted at Government College (Women), Rohtak, and had attained 50 years of age when she received order of pre-mature retirement annexure P-1 as has been described above dated 26th September, 1991. It is the case of the Petitioner that in her whole service career she had shown excellant results which demonstrated her ability as teacher. That apart, she had many research articles to her credit. Her one article "Simple Corelation of various Chemical Components of Plants" was published in the journal of international reputation in the year 1981 and another journal.

"A New Teaching Technique for Forage Evaluation" was again Published in the international Journal i.e. Act Botanica India in the year 1983. She also claims to have an-excellant service career and during the last eight years no adverse confidential report were conveyed to her. However, prior to eight-years immediately preceding the order of pre-mature retirement she was conveyed two adverse reports. The remarks of the same were not known. On the assertions, as have been noticed above, notice of motion was issued and in consequence thereof written statement has been Med by the Respondent State through Shri R.D. Sheokand. Deputy Secretary Education to Government Haryana, By way of preliminary objection it is pleaded that by virtue of Sub-clause (d) of Rule 3.26(a) of Civil Services Rules, Volume I, the appointing authority has absolute right if in its opinion it is in the public interest to retire a Government Servant, the same can be done by giving the employee a notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay in lieu thereof. It is also stated that the case of the Petitioner was reviewed by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the above said rule and instructions contained in letter dated 19th November, 1991 and the competent authority decided to retire the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions in public interest at the age of 50 years. Even though no serious dispute has been raised in the written statement with regard to the research articles, the Petitioner claims to have written and which are stated to have been published in international journals as also without much commenting upon the results of the Petitioner as have been claimed by her the Respondents have, however, hotly contested the assertion of the Petitioner that her service record of last eight years has been without any blamish or that she had not been conveyed any adverse remarks for the said period. It is pleaded that the adverse remarks recorded in the annual confidential report of the Petitioner for the years 1981-82, 1984-85 and 1987-88 were conveyed and some of the said remarks even talked adversely with regard to integrity of the Petitioner. The chart made below would manifest that the aforesaid contention of the Respondents is substantially correct:

Table Missing

Definite adverse remarks conveyed to the Petitioner in the manner aforesaid apart, the case of the Respondents is that even over all record of the Petitioner was far from satisfactory in-as-much-as in the last ten years she had earned only two such reports which could be described as "good" whereas all other reports were either average or below average. Summary of the annual confidential reports of the Petitioner from the years 1981-82 to 1990-91 is as follows:

Table Missing

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that for the last more than eight years no adverse remarks were conveyed to the Petitioner and it is by now well settled law that no adverse order like pre-mature retirement can be passed on the basis of such adverse confidential reports which, have not been communicated to the official/officer and against which adverse remarks there was no chance or occasion to file any representation. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel that in-as-much-as, the results of the Petitioner have always been excellent she could not be retired in public interest as the said interest could only he achieved by removing the dead wood and to chop off such element which may be burden on the department as also that service tenure of the Petitioner has been cut-short by as many as eight years without any justifiable reasons. Based upon the service record of the Petitioner, as has been narrated above, the State counsel however, refutes the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the record we are of the considered view that the Petitioner has been rightly retired and that none of the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is good enough to interfere with the impugned order. It shall be seen from the summary of the adverse remarks which had been conveyed to the Petitioner that her integrity was not upto the mark for the year 1981-82. Her relations with head and other teachers as also with officials were poor. She was opined to be an obstinate officer who also shirks duties and was quarrel some. Her punctuality was also poor. She was assessed to be below average. For the year 1984-85 her results have also been poorly commented upon which is the main stake of the Petitioner to claim herself to be an excellent teacher. She was commented to be a person who will take quarrels with the colleagues as also with the Principal). Likewise, for the year 1987-88 her relation with the Principal and collagues were not stated to be good. She was also not Cooperative with anyone. Her overall assessment was average. As is evident from the summary of annual confidential report she had only two good reports whereas all the other reports are either average or below average. It is true that all the average reports have not been communicated to her but it is the over-all record which has to be taken into account while determining as to whether a person is fit for retention in service or not. An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it implies no stigma. It is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. In Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, . the apex Court has now held that an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it excommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration, and that circumstance by itself cannot form the basis for interference which is permissible only on the grounds such as if the order is passed mala fide or based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary in the since that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material i.e. if it is found to be a perverse order. The mere fact that the Petitioner has to her credit few publications, as have been noticed above, would not be in itself enough to interfere with the order Annexure P-1 which apparently has been passed on over-all assessment of the work and conduct of the Petitioner during the last ten years. Finding no merit in this writ petition, we dismiss the same in limine. There shall be no orders as to costs.