Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3210 (PNJ)

Babu Ram Walia v. State Of Haryana

2006-08-08

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated 13.4.2006 (P-6), 31.5.2006 (P-7) and expunging of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the period from 26.7.2005 to 31.1.2006 as conveyed vide letter dated 6.2.2006 (P-4 ). A further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents not to take into consideration the ACR for the aforementioned period while considering the case of the petitioner for granting him extension in service on completing the age of 55 years. 2. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner joined service in the respondent Department as a Constable on 17.3.1972 and he was promoted as Head Constable on 15.5.1979. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 6.8.1991 and as Sub Inspector on 12.10.1999. The petitioner was confirmed as Sub Inspector w. e. f.31.1.2003. It is appropriate to mention here that as per the record the date of birth of the petitioner is 30.4.1951 and he attained the age of 55 years on 29.4.2006. The petitioner claims that he has been awarded 116 certificates for good work/meritorious service and his conduct remained very good on various assignments and appreciated by his superiors. However, while the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, a case FIR No.429, dated 22.12.2005, under Sections 353/186/201/261 IPC, Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against him (P-1 ). The allegation in the aforementioned FIR is that when the complainant Karam Chand went to the police station to report the matter, the petitioner returned his application and demanded Rs.5,000/-as bribe, out of which Rs.2,000/-were paid by the complainant at the spot and thereafter a trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red handed while taking currency notes of Rs.3,000/-and consequently the said FIR was registered against the petitioner. The trial in FIR No.429, dated 22.12.2005, is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar. 3. After registration of criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.12.2005 and the competent authority fixed the station of the petitioner as Police Lines, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 24.12.2005. 4. The trial in FIR No.429, dated 22.12.2005, is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar. 3. After registration of criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.12.2005 and the competent authority fixed the station of the petitioner as Police Lines, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 24.12.2005. 4. It has been claimed that in order to harass the petitioner he was transferred from Yamuna Nagar to District Kaithal in violation of Rule 14.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana ). Challenging the said action of the authorities, the petitioner filed C. W. P. No.2199 of 2006 in this Court and thereafter the respondents withdrew the order of transfer and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.4.2006 (P-2 ). 5. A charge sheet dated 18.1.2006 (P-3) has been issued to the petitioner on the basis of the allegations made in FIR No.429, dated 22.12.2005 (P-1 ). It is claimed that the allegations in the charge sheet are based on the same facts as mentioned in the above mentioned FIR. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri has been appointed as Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. When the Enquiry Officer did not accede to the request of the petitioner not to proceed with the inquiry proceedings till the pendency of the criminal trial, inasmuch as, according to the petitioner the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceedings are identical to the FIR, the petitioner again filed C. W. P. No.4784 of 2006 in this Court, wherein departmental proceedings are stated to have been stayed. 6. In the A. C. R. of the petitioner for the period commencing from 26.7.2005 to 31.1.2006, the competent authority i. e. respondent No.4 recorded adverse remarks, which was conveyed to him on 6.2.2006 (P-4 ). It is appropriate to mention that against the column of Honesty it has been recorded as doubtful/verbal warnings have been given many a time. The complaint of public had received. The adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 6.2.2006 (P-4) reads as under: 1 Honesty Doubtful/verbal warnings have been given many time. It is appropriate to mention that against the column of Honesty it has been recorded as doubtful/verbal warnings have been given many a time. The complaint of public had received. The adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 6.2.2006 (P-4) reads as under: 1 Honesty Doubtful/verbal warnings have been given many time. The complaint of public had received 2 Initiative and Moral Courage to expose the misdeed of his subordinates Average 3 Reputation to maintain cordial relation with the public and for good behaviour Average 4 Personality Average 5 Qualification about removal of grievances and investigation Average 6 Reliability Average 7 Defect, if any and the letters by which these defects were brought to the notice of the concerned officer. Verbal instructions were given several times to behave properly with the subordinate and general public. 7. The petitioner then made a representation Annexure P-5 to the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. (respondent No.3) for striking down the adverse remarks for the period 26.7.2005 to 31.1.2006 from his ACR. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority respondent No.3, vide order dated 13.4.2006, after obtaining comments from the Reporting Authority and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner (P-6 ). 8. Thereafter, in pursuance to the orders approved by the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide his office memo No.4046/e (II)-2, dated 26.5.2006, the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar -respondent No.4, passed an order dated 31.5.2006, retiring the petitioner from Government Service with immediate effect i. e. w. e. f.31.5.2006 AN in the public interest (P-7 ). The order dated 31.5.2006 reads as under: As approved by the Director General of Police, Haryana vide his office memo No.4046/e (II)-2 dated 26.5.06 copy of which endst. by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. vide his office No.13255/a-1 dated 29.5.06, SI Babu Ram No. A-87 is not allowed to serve beyond the age of 55 years which he has attain on 29.4.06 being his date of birth 30.4.1951 due to his integrity doubtful in his ACR for the period from 26.7.05 to 31.3.06. He shall be stands retired from the Govt. services with immediate effect i. e. w. e. f.31.5.06 AN in the public interest. LO/pl, Yamuna Nagar will be responsible to relieve this SI from Govt. duty today i. e. w. e. f.31.5.06 after depositing all Govt. He shall be stands retired from the Govt. services with immediate effect i. e. w. e. f.31.5.06 AN in the public interest. LO/pl, Yamuna Nagar will be responsible to relieve this SI from Govt. duty today i. e. w. e. f.31.5.06 after depositing all Govt. articles issued to him from time to time alongwith identity card. 9. Since there was a technical defect in the order dated 31.5.2006 (P-7), inasmuch as, three months notice for retirement was required to be served upon the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , Volume-I read with Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (as applicable to Haryana), therefore, upon realizing the mistake, respondent No.4 passed another other on 31.5.2006 itself revoking its earlier order of the even date (P-8 ). Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also issued another order/notice on 31.5.2006 to the petitioner giving him three months notice for retirement as provided under Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , Volume-I, read with Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (P9 ). The order/notice dated 31.5.2006 reads as under: You SI Babu Ram No. A/87 (under suspension) has attained the age of 55 years on 29.4.06 being your date of birth 30.04.1951. I have examined your service record for retention in Govt. service after attaining the age of 55 years. But keeping in view your service records, work and conduct, I am not satisfied and your case is not found fit for retention in service after attaining the age of 55 years. Your service are no more required by the Police Department in the public interest. Hence, you are, therefore, served upon with 3 months notice for retirement as provided under rule 9.18 of PPR Vol-I read with rule 5.32 of CSR Vol-II. You shall stand retired from Govt. service after the expiry of this notice i. e.31.08.2006. 10. From the perusal of the above order/notice it clearly comes out that the petitioner is to stand retire from Government service after the expiry of notice period on 31.8.2006. You shall stand retired from Govt. service after the expiry of this notice i. e.31.08.2006. 10. From the perusal of the above order/notice it clearly comes out that the petitioner is to stand retire from Government service after the expiry of notice period on 31.8.2006. When the matter came up for consideration on 31.7.2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce in the pleadings relevant provisions of Rules which are alleged to have been violated including Rule 5.32 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.-II, as applicable to Haryana, as well as Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , as applicable to Haryana. In response to the aforementioned order, instead of placing on record the complete provisions of Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-II, only the provisions of Rule 5.32-B of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2, Part 1 and Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , Volume 1, Chapter IX Pensions, have been placed on record as Annexures P-10 and P-11 respectively. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record instructions dated 12.4.2005, issued by the State Government in relation to cases of employees regarding their retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years (P-12 ). 11. Mr. D. S. Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner on 6.2.2006 (P-4) in respect of the period commencing from 26.7.2005 to 31.1.2006 cannot be made the basis for retiring the petitioner prematurely, inasmuch as the entire record of the petitioner is unblemished and no adverse report has ever been conveyed to him except for the above mentioned period of six months. He has further submitted that the doubtful integrity in the column of honesty has been recorded only because a case FIR No.429, dated 22.12.2005 (P-1) has been registered against the petitioner, which according to the petitioner is totally false and concocted one. The trial is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the aforementioned FIR has also been stayed by this Court in C. W. P. No.4784 of 2006. Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that till the decision of the criminal case, the integrity of the petitioner cannot be doubted. The trial is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the aforementioned FIR has also been stayed by this Court in C. W. P. No.4784 of 2006. Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that till the decision of the criminal case, the integrity of the petitioner cannot be doubted. Learned Counsel also relied upon a Division Bench Judge of this Court in the case of Chander Bhan Arya V/s. The Secretary to Government, Haryana and Anr.1997 (3) RSJ 626, to argue that the petitioner cannot be compulsorily retired solely on the basis of the adverse remarks recorded in the confidential report for a period of six months commencing from 26.7.2005 to 31.1.2006. He has maintained that the Reporting Authority has without any rhyme or reason recorded the integrity of the petitioner as doubtful and no reasons or instances have been given. He has emphasised that the whole service record of the petitioner is Good or Very Good and, therefore, merely on the basis of adverse report of six months the petitioner could not be prematurely retired. 12. It has been further argued that once the petitioner has been allowed to cross the efficiency bar on attaining the age of 55 years, which the petitioner completed on 29.4.2006, he cannot be prematurely retired, more particularly in view of the fact that the order dated 31.5.2006 (P-7) retiring him at the age of 55 years has been withdrawn on the same date vide order Annexure P-8. Learned Counsel also referred to the instructions dated 12.4.2005 (P-12) and argued that the same have not been adhered to by the respondents, inasmuch as, the case of the petitioner regarding retention in service beyond the age of 55 years was required to be sent to the appropriate authority at least six months before attaining the age of 55 years. 13. Having heard the learned Counsel at a considerable length and perusing the averments made in the petition, we are of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Having heard the learned Counsel at a considerable length and perusing the averments made in the petition, we are of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. It would be pertinent to make a reference to the relevant provisions of Rule 5.32-A and 5.32-B of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana) as well as Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , Volume-1, which are reproduced hereunder: 5.32-A. The rule for the grant of retiring pensions is as follows: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx Note 1.-- The Government retains an absolute right to retire any Government employee after he has completed twenty-five years of service qualifying for pension if he is holding a pensionable post or has completed service for a similar period if he is holding a non-pensionable post, but is entitled to the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund, without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right will not be exercised except when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of a Government employee such as on account of inefficiency, dishonesty, corruption or infamous conduct. This Clause (b) of this rule is intended for use- (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx The word "government" used in this note should be interpreted to mean the authority which has the power of removing the Government employee from service under the Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Note 2.--xxx xxx xxx Note 3.--xxx xxx xxx (c) A retiring pension is also granted to a Government employee other than a Class IV Government employee,- (1) who is retired by the appointing authority by giving him a notice of not less than three months in writing,- (i) If he is in class I or class II service or post and had enacted Govt. service before attaining the age of thirty-five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years; and (ii) (a) If he is in class III service or post; or (b) If he is in Class I or class II service or post and entered Govt. service after attaining the age of thirty five years. service before attaining the age of thirty-five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years; and (ii) (a) If he is in class III service or post; or (b) If he is in Class I or class II service or post and entered Govt. service after attaining the age of thirty five years. after he has attained the age of fifty five years; (2) Who, if from category (1) above retires on or after attaining the age of fifty years, or if from category (1) (ii) above retires on/or after attaining the age of fifty five years, by giving a notice of not less than three months, in writing, of his intention to retire, to the appointing authority: Provided that where the notice is given before attaining the age of fifty years or fifty five years, as the case may, it shall be given effect to from a date not earlier than the date on which the age of fifty years, or fifty five years, as the case may be is attained. Note.-- Appointing authority retains an absolute right to retire any Govt. employee referred to above on or after he has attained the age of fifty years, or fifty five years, as the case may be, without assigning any reason. A corresponding right is also available to such a Govt. employee to retire on or after he has attained the age of fifty years or fifty five years, as the case may be. x x x x x x x x x "5.32-B. (1) At any time a Government employee has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. However, a Government employee may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reason therefor. On receipt of a request, the appointing authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under Sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority subject to Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in Sub-rule (1) supra, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period: Provided further that before a Government employee gives notice of voluntary retirement with reference to Sub-rule (1) he should satisfy himself by means of a reference to the appropriate authority that he has, in fact, completed twenty years service qualifying for pension. (3) The qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of the Government employee seeking retirement under this rule or under Clause (3) of Rule 3.26 of Pb. C. S. R. Vol. I, Part I with or without permission shall be increased by the period not exceeding 5 years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government employee does not in any case exceed 33 years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. The weightage of five years shall not be admissible in cases of those Government employees who are prematurely retired by the Government in public interest under the relevant rules. (4) A Government employee, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. Provided that the request of withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (5) The pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of the Government employee retiring under the rule shall be based on the emoluments as defined under Rule 6.24 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purposes of calculating pension and gratuity. (6) The amount of pension to be granted after giving the weightage will be subject to the provisions of Rule 6.4 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II. (6) The amount of pension to be granted after giving the weightage will be subject to the provisions of Rule 6.4 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II. (7) This rule shall not apply to a Government employee who retires from Government service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a Public Sector Undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule the expression "appointing authority" shall mean the authority which is competent to make appointments to the service or post from which the Government employee seeks voluntary retirement. x x x x x x x x x 3.26. (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, every Government employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. He must not be retained in service after the age of compulsory retirement, except in exceptional circumstances with the sanction of the competent authority in public interest, which must be recorded in writing: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) The appointing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government employee, other than Class IV Government employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice: (i) If he is in class I or class II Service or post and had entered Government service, before attaining the age of thirty five years, after he has attained the age of fifty year; and (ii) (a) If he is in class III Service or post, or (b) If he is class I or Class II Service or post and entered Government service after attaining the age of thirty-five years; after he has attained the age of fifty five years. The Government employee would stand retired immediately on payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period and will not be in service thereafter. x x x x x x x x x 14. Punjab Police Rule (as applicable to Haryana) Rule 9.18 for Haryana. The Government employee would stand retired immediately on payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period and will not be in service thereafter. x x x x x x x x x 14. Punjab Police Rule (as applicable to Haryana) Rule 9.18 for Haryana. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, a retiring pension is granted to an officer - (a) who is permitted to retire from service after completing qualifying service of twenty-five years or such lesser period of as may, for any class of officers, be prescribed; or (b) who is compulsorily retired under Sub-rule (2) after completing twenty-five years qualifying service; or (c) who is retired by the appointing authority on or after he attains the age of 55 years, by giving him not less than months notice; or (d) who retires on or after attaining the age of 55 years by giving not less than three months notice of his intention to retire to the appointing authority. Provided that where the notice is given before the age of fifty-five years so attained, it shall be given effect to from a date not earlier than the date on which the age of fifty-five years is attained. Note: Appointing authority retains an absolute right to retire any Government servant on or after he has attained the age of 55 years without assigning any reason. A corresponding right is also available to such a Government servant to retire on or after he has attained the age of 55 years. (2) The Inspector-General of Police may, with the previous approval of the State Government; compulsorily retire any Police Officer, other than an officer belonging to Indian Police Service or Haryana State Police Service who has completed twenty-five years qualifying service, without giving any reasons. An officer who is so compulsorily retired will not be entitled to claim any special compensation for his retirement. Note: The right to retire compulsorily shall not be exercised when it is in the public interest to dispence with the further services of an officer on grounds such as inefficiency, dishonesty, corruption or infamous conduct. An officer who is so compulsorily retired will not be entitled to claim any special compensation for his retirement. Note: The right to retire compulsorily shall not be exercised when it is in the public interest to dispence with the further services of an officer on grounds such as inefficiency, dishonesty, corruption or infamous conduct. Thus the rule is intended for use - (i) against an officer whose efficiency is impaired but against whom it is not desirable to make formal charges of inefficiency or who has ceased to be fully efficient i. e. , when as officers value is clearly incommensurate with the pay which he draws but not to such a degree as to warrant his retirement on a compassionate allowance. It is not the intention to use the provisions of this rule as a financial weapon that is to say the provisions should be used in only the case of an officer who is considered unfit for retention on personal as opposed to financial grounds. (ii) in cases where reputation for corruption, dishonesty or infamous conduct is clearly established even though no specific instance is likely to be proved. 15. According to Rule 3.26 (d) an Appointing Authority has been clothed with absolute power to retire a Government employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu thereof if such an employee is in Class-I or Class-II service or post if he has attained the age of 55 years, provided that if he has entered the Government service when he was more than 35 years of age. The petitioner has attained the age of 55 years on 29.4.2006, his date of birth being 30.4.1951. He has entered the service on 17.3.1972 when he was about 21 years of age. 16. Therefore, the petitioner answers the requirement of the Rule that he could have been retired at the age of 55 years if he had entered the service after attaining the age of 35 years. Such an employee could also be retired at the age of 50 years if he has entered the service before attaining the age of 35 years. Rule 5.32 (c) regulate retiring pension, which is to be granted to such an employee. Such an employee could also be retired at the age of 50 years if he has entered the service before attaining the age of 35 years. Rule 5.32 (c) regulate retiring pension, which is to be granted to such an employee. Rule 5.32-B, which has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-10, only prescribes the procedure to be adopted when a Government employee after completing twenty years qualifying service gives a notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority to retire him from service. The aforementioned Rule 5.32-B, therefore, has no bearing in the facts of the present case and the same is not attracted at all. Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , Volume-1 (as application to Haryana) deals with retiring pension to an officer. Sub-rule (c) of Rule 9.18 prescribes that a retiring pension is granted to an officer who is retired by the appointing authority on or after he attains the age of 55 years, by giving him not less than months notice. Sub-rule (d) of Rule 9.18 further prescribes that a retiring pension is also granted to an officer who retires on or after attaining the age of 55 years by giving not less than three months notice of his intention to retire to the appointing authority. Note below Rule 9.18 empowers the appointing authority absolute right to retire any Government servant on or after he has attained the age of 55 years without assigning any reason. 17. On the basis of the report showing integrity doubtful, the petitioner has lawfully been retired from service, which is in larger public interest as postulated by Rule 5.32-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.26 (d) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana) as well as Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , Volume-1, on attaining the age of 55 years. The argument of the learned Counsel that once the petitioner has been allowed to cross the efficiency bar on attaining the age of 55 years he cannot be retire prematurely, has no legs to stand in view of the specific and categoric stipulations under the above Rules. 18. The argument of the learned Counsel that once the petitioner has been allowed to cross the efficiency bar on attaining the age of 55 years he cannot be retire prematurely, has no legs to stand in view of the specific and categoric stipulations under the above Rules. 18. A perusal of the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the period from 26.7.2005 to 31.1.2006 (P-4), categorically shows that the integrity of the petitioner has remained doubtful. It is well settled that if integrity of an employee is doubted even once then such an employee may have to be chopped off as a deadwood, which is in larger public interest. The aforementioned proposition has repeatedly been considered by Honble the Supreme Court. In Baikuntha Nath Das V/s. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada the whole earlier case law was reviewed and following five propositions were extracted and the same reads as under: 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. 19. It is equally well settled that once there is an entry of integrity doubtful in the service record of an employee then it is considered to be in larger public interest to retire such a person prematurely. In that regard, reliance may be placed to the judgments of Honble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India V/s. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik and Jugal Chandra Saikia V/s. State of Assam In para 5 of the judgment in Jugal Chandra Saikias case (supra) it has been noticed that the review committee had concluded that the delinquent employee had outlived its utility and was of doubtful integrity. In Jugal Chandra Saikias case (supra), Honble the Supreme has followed and applied the principles of law as laid down in Baikuntha Nath Dass case (supra ). In light of the principles laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in Jugal Chandra Saikias case (supra), Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chander Bhan Aryas case (supra), which has been relied on by the learned Counsel, could not have been considered and relied upon. 20. When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, no doubt is left that the order dated 13.4.2006 (P-6), 31.5.2006 (P7) and adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the period from 26.7.2005 to 31.1.2006 as conveyed vide letter dated 6.2.2006 (P4 ). deserves to be upheld as the same is in larger public interest because it seeks to get rid of an inefficient and dishonest officer. deserves to be upheld as the same is in larger public interest because it seeks to get rid of an inefficient and dishonest officer. The above mentioned orders have been passed in consonance with the requirements of Rule 5.32-A (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.26 (d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I, Part-I, as well as Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , Volume-1, as has already been observed in the preceding paras. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. 21. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.