Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2627 (PNJ)

Krishan Gopal Khanna v. State Of Haryana

2010-09-13

M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Irrigation Department in State of Haryana has challenged the order dated 2.3.1991 retiring him compulsorily from service w.e.f. 6.3.1991 (Annexure P-1). A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction to respondent No. 1 to reinstate him in service from retrospective effect from 6.3.1991 and allow him to continue until the age of superannuation, which is 31.12.1992 and grant him all the benefits of continuous service. He has further claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. Five lacs along with penal interest of 18% on the salary and allowance admissible to him. 2. Few facts may first be noticed. The petitioner was originally recruited as a Junior Engineer in the State of Punjab on 19.11.1958, and on re- organization, he was allocated to the newly carved out State of Haryana. His date of birth is 15.12.1934 and he would have attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1992 on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner has claimed that he has worked with devotion and dedication and on that account he was promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on 10.1.1979 and was also granted selection grade in 1982. 3. In respect of his service record from 27.6.1985 to 12.2.1986 an adverse confidential report was recorded belatedly in December 1987. The adverse entry was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 29.1.1988. His representation against the same was summarily rejected vide order dated 23.10.1989. Another adverse report in respect of period from 1.4.1987 to 3.8.1987 was recorded in December 1987. It was communicated to him on 3.6.1988 and he made representation against the adverse remarks on 15.7.1988, which was rejected. Both the reports have been criticized on the ground of delay in their recording. The Petitioner has also claimed that process of reviewing his service record beyond the age of 55 years one year prior to attaining the age of 55 years (Annexure P-5) was initiated. He was allowed to continue beyond the age of 55 years and his services were placed at the disposal of CADA, Rohtak Circle on 5.1.1989. The petitioner has claimed that on 7.12.1991, the adverse remarks in the confidential reports were likely to be expunged and the order concerning his compulsory retirement was likely to be revoked by Irrigation and Power Minister. The petitioner has claimed that on 7.12.1991, the adverse remarks in the confidential reports were likely to be expunged and the order concerning his compulsory retirement was likely to be revoked by Irrigation and Power Minister. However, for want of approval by the Chief Minister, neither the adverse remarks were expunged nor the order of compulsory retirement was withdrawn. 4. In the written statement, respondents No. 1 to 4 have taken the stand that the service record of the petitioner was less than 70% good. Therefore, he was compulsorily retired as per Rules. A summary of the ACRs for the last 10 years from 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1989 have been placed on record (Annexure R/8). 5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. However, I have heard the learned State counsel. 6. Having heard learned counsel and perusing the record, it would be appropriate to first set out his Annual Confidential Report from 1982-1983 which reads as under: Year 1982-83 i) 1.4.82 to 17.8.82 Category Remarks Not available ii) 18.8.82 to 19.10.82 iii) 31.10.82 to 13.12.1982 iv) 15.12.82 to 31.3.83 1983-84 i) 1.4.83 to 2.6.83 ii) 3.6.83 to 31.3.84 1984-85 i) 1.4.84 to 25.8.84 ii) 1.9.84 to 31.3.85 1985-86 i) 1.4.85 to 26.6.85 ii) 27.6.85 to 12.2.86 1986-87 i)1.4.86 to 30.9.86 ii) 1.10.86 to 31.3.87 1987-88 i) 1.4.87 to 3.8.87 ii) 14.8.87 to 31.3.88 1988-89 Average Satisfactory Average Average Good Poor Good Under suspension. Compulsory waiting period Remarks conveyed but officer did not give representation against these remarks. Short period. Remarks conveyed to the officer but he did not representation against these remarks warning issued. Remarks conveyed and Sh. Khanna represented against these remarks but his representation rejected. Remarks conveyed CP/41 Officer represented against these remarks but only the remarks regarding doubtful integrity and communal bias were expunged. Short period Remarks conveyed (CP/52) doubtful integrity Officer represented against adverse remarks but representation rejected by Govt. 13.12.86 to 30.9.86 he remained on leave. Remarks conveyed to the officer integrity not fair officer represented against adverse remarks but representation has been rejected by Govt. i) 1.4.88 to 31.12.88 ii) 9.1.89 to 31.3.89 V.Good Good But it is short period. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid record as per annexure R-8 would show that in respect of year 1987- 88, the remarks conveyed to him were that his integrity was not fair. Representation against the same was rejected. i) 1.4.88 to 31.12.88 ii) 9.1.89 to 31.3.89 V.Good Good But it is short period. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid record as per annexure R-8 would show that in respect of year 1987- 88, the remarks conveyed to him were that his integrity was not fair. Representation against the same was rejected. Likewise, for the year 1986-87, the Officer remained on leave for a period of more than 7 months and for the remaining period he earned good reports and for the year 1985-86 again remarks conveyed to him doubted his integrity and the representation was rejected. In respect of year 1984-85, there were recovery orders issued against the Officer although remarks with regard to integrity and communal bias were expunged. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the Officer fulfilled the basic criteria of retention in service beyond 55 years. He had become dead-wood as he was repeatedly earning remarks about the doubtful integrity. It is well settled that if an officer keeps on earning adverse remarks about his integrity then such an officer cannot be retained in service and has to be treated to dead-wood. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Union of India v. M.E. Reddy, (1980)2 SCC15; State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das, 1996(4) S.C.T. 288 : (1996)5 SCC 331 and Preetam Singh v. Union of India 2004(4) S.C.T. 237 : (2005)9 SCC 748. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. As a sequel to the above discussions, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.