RSA No.2827 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2827 of 1988 Date of Decision: 30 - 11 - 2010 The Collector, Karnal, District Karnal ....Appellant v. Satya Pal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for the appellant. Mr.Neeraj Sura, Advocate for Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) The plaintiff-respondent was posted as a Patwari in Sub Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra. His services were confirmed in the year 1974. It is pleaded that service record of the plaintiff-respondent was above board and he was allowed to undertake the examination of Kanungo, which he passed in the year 1979 and he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 1.4.1978. After promotion, the plaintiff-respondent was posted as Kanungo at various places. The Director, Land Records, Haryana in January, 1986 had recorded `Very Good' remarks in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. In the year 1986, the plaintiff-respondent received a letter from the department RSA No.2827 of 1988 [2] that in the Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the year 1971-72, his Integrity was recorded as `Doubtful'. A grievance was made that as per Government instructions, the adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report was not communicated within six weeks. It is stated that the defendant-appellant on 19.2.1987 had passed an order to take charge of the office from the plaintiff-respondent. In the written statement filed, it was stated that the retirement age of the Government officials is 58 years and an official can be retired by the competent authority after attaining the age of 55 years. It was stated that impugned communication was nothing but a notice of retirement issued on 19.2.1987 and in pursuance thereof, charge has been handed over to Om Parkash, Field Kanungo, Israna II. After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial Court formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the order dt. 19.2.1987 passed by the Collector Karnal is illegal, void and without jurisdiction etc. as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice U/S 80 C.P.C.? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the present suit? OPD 5. Relief. Satya Pal plaintiff himself appeared as PW2 and examined Yash Pal Singh, Office Kanungo PW1 who produced the relevant record. Parveen Kumar, Clerk PW3 had produced the record and thereafter the plaintiff closed his evidence. The defendant-appellants examined Parveen Kumar, Clerk as DW1, who proved the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1971-72, conveyed to the plaintiff-respondent on 29.7.1986. The trial Court held that except the stray entry in the Annual RSA No.2827 of 1988 [3] Confidential Report for the year 1971-72, the service record of the plaintiff was very good and the solitary entry cannot be made the basis for retirement of the plaintiff at the age of 55 years. It was further noticed that after the adverse entry was recorded, the plaintiff-respondent was promoted and was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. However, the trial Court held that any public official can be retired at the age of 55 years after giving three months' notice or three months' salary in advance. However, notice dated 11.8.1986 shows that retirement was being made in public interest and, thus, there was no illegality in the order dated 19.2.1987. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court after noticing the facts and perusing the evidence returned the following findings:- “11. It is patently clear in the present case that two adverse entries were made against the present plaintiff. One in the annual confidential report for the year 1970-71 and the other in the annual confidential report for the year 1971-72. Those remarks were never conveyed to the plaintiff till 1986. Plaintiff had no knowledge and no opportunity to make any representation. It is rather ludicrous that the authorities concerned woke up from their slumber after 15 years and sent an intimation to the plaintiff in the year 1986 regarding the adverse entries recorded in the year 1971-72. The plaintiff made a representation praying for the expunction of the remarks. That representation was yet to be decided when the plaintiff was ordered to be retired prematurely. He had not only crossed the efficiency bar and had been given the promotion, he was even confirmed as Kanungo a promotional post. The remarks related to a period long back. After he was allowed to cross efficiency bar and was given promotion those adverse remarks could not means anything. They in fact stood washed out. Still the remarks were conveyed after 15 years RSA No.2827 of 1988 [4] and that too after promotions and confirmation had been earned by the employee. 12. The rules require that adverse remarks should be conveyed six weeks of the closure of the financial year concerned. What to talk of six weeks, the authorities concerned did not think of conveying the adverse remarks to the plaintiff even for 14 years.” Relying upon case law, the lower Appellate Court further held that there was no material before the authorities to compulsory retire the plaintiff-respondent in public interest and, therefore, had decreed the suit and set aside the order of retirement. It is not disputed that age of retirement was 58 years. The employee had attained the age of 55 years on 19.12.1987. His appeal was allowed on 24.8.1988. No stay was granted. Whether the employee thereafter had joined the service and performed his duties or not, counsel for the parties are not aware. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has stated that probably the plaintiff-respondent has expired also. I have heard counsel for the parties. There was only one adverse entry in the service record of the plaintiff-respondent pertaining to the year 1971-72. He was promoted from the post of Patwari to the post of Kanungo in the year 1980. He was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The Director, Land Records, Haryana while on tour in January, 1986 had recorded Very Good remarks in the service record of the plaintiff-respondent. In the subsequent period of 15 years after recording of adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report, the plaintiff-respondent due to discharge of his duties in a rightful earnest manner was granted promotion and crossed the efficiency bar. This is RSA No.2827 of 1988 [5] sufficient to wash stray entry recorded 15 years ago from the date when notice of compulsory retirement was issued. There is no illegality in the reasoning advanced by the lower Appellate Court. Therefore, the same is affirmed, especially when no substantial question of law has been formulated or brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present appeal is hereby dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 30, 2010. JUDGE RC