Civil Writ Petition No.11192 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 29, 2009 Balwant Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who joined as a Patwari and was promoted as Field Kanungo, has filed this petition to challenge the order of retirement on the ground of non-grant of additional benefit of three years employment on completion of age of 55 years. On 18.9.2007, FIR No.39 dated 18.9.2007 was registered against the petitioner under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Gurgaon. Though placed under suspension with effect from same day, he was reinstated on 28.3.2008 without prejudice to departmental enquiry. He completed 55 years of age on 14.9.2008. Civil Writ Petition No.11192 of 2009 : 2 : On 19.9.2008, the petitioner was ordered to retire w.e.f.14.9.2008 on completion of 55 years of age, his date of birth being 15.9.1953. It is disclosed in the order dated 19.9.2008 that the matter regarding grant of additional service benefit of three years of this employee was sent by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Mohindergarh. The employee (petitioner) was granted opportunity of hearing. Noticing that the FIR dated 18.9.2007 was registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act and the case was pending in the civil court, the retirement order was passed as there was allegation of corruption against the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly challenged this order being in violation of the policies dated 22.3.1990 and 19.11.1991, Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively. The plea also is that he has been acquitted of the criminal case on 19.2.2009. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that while considering the case for retention of the petitioner, it was required to be seen that he must have earned at least 70% good or above reports during the last ten years. The counsel contends that the petitioner would have 70% good reports to his credit during the last ten years and, hence, could not have been retired in terms of the policy instructions, Annexures P-5 and P-6. I have perused the policy instructions, Annexures P-5 and P-6, annexed with the petition, which are regulating the case of compulsory retirement. Policy instruction, Annexure P-5, recites that the matter has further been considered by the State government and it has been decided that while considering the cases of retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years, the reports of doubtful integrity of an employee pertaining to the period beyond the last ten Civil Writ Petition No.11192 of 2009 : 3 : years may be ignored. It is further provided that placing the case of those employees whose integrity has been suspected within this period will continue to be in force and such cases could be placed before the Officers' Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, the Financial Commissioner, the Administrative Secretary etc. Similarly, in the policy instructions, Annexure P-6, the Rules of pre-mature retirement have been justified being based on the sound policy and in the public interest. It is also noticed that compulsory/premature retirement is not a punishment nor does it involve a stain or stigma and its provisions in the rules is necessary in the public interest. The criteria of having 50%, 70% good or above reports during the last ten years on attaining the age of 50 or 55 years respectively though is provided but this is required to be read in connection with the requirement that there has to be no entry regarding doubtful integrity during this period. This is so very clearly provided in policy instructions, Annexure P-6. Viewed in this background, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been able to maintain record of integrity beyond doubt. The petitioner was facing criminal charge for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is possible to view that he has not been able to maintain a clean record. There was stain on his integrity and, thus, his integrity could be termed as doubtful. Thus, the action of the respondents in not granting extension of service to the petitioner after providing him opportunity of hearing, which is not stigmatic in any manner, would not call for interference in the facts and circumstances of this case. The subsequent acquittal would not materially alter the position as was existing on the date the impugned Civil Writ Petition No.11192 of 2009 : 4 : order was made. Mere acquittal in a criminal trial which could be due to benefit of doubt or on some other such considerations would not mean that the charge or allegation against the petitioner were falsified. Acquittal in a criminal trial ordinarily would mean that the prosecution was not able to establish the allegations made against the petitioner, which can be on the basis of variety of reasons. As is well known, a criminal trial is not a voyage for truth and the acquittal would only mean that the charges could not be established. I, thus, see no infirmity in the impugned order declining extension of service to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 29, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE