IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10398 of 1990 Date of Decision : August 20, 2010. Raghbir Singh ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present writ petition has been filed challenging premature retrirement order dated 15.06.1990 (Annexure-P-1). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the last ten years, except for one entry, which is ‘Average’, all were ‘Good’. The instructions dealing with the subject of compulsory retirement states that, if a person has 70% of the ACR’s good or average, then he is entitled to continue in service and he cannot be prematurely retired. Not even a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given. He on this basis contends that the said Order of premature retirement cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondents submits that the termination of the petitioner is primarily based on the last annual confidential report for the period 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1989 (Annexure-R-3), wherein in the remarks column, it has been recorded as follow :- “Proforma of Annual Confidential Report of Non-gazetted officials Period : 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 Name : Shri Raghbir Singh Designation : Superintendent, D.C.’s office, Hissar. Reporting Officer :1. Shri M.C. Nagpal, HCS, City Magistrate, Hissar 2. Shri Yudhvir Singh, IAS, D.C. Hissar. C.W.P. No. 10398 of 1990 -2- ______________________________________________________________ Points Reported by Reported by ______________________________________________________________ 1. Honesty and integrity He is an easy going man. I agree with City Magistrate’s 2. Handwriting and Legible hand. observations. During neatness. the last one year that 3. Capacity and He is not competent for he worked with me, Intelligence. this job. his contribution on 4. Knowledge of Rules/ Poor. files, in the form one Regulations. or two lines, could be 5. Quickness in the Because of lack of seen once in two / disposal of work knowledge of Rules and three months. His Regulations, there were disposal was very delays in the disposal slow. He has been of work. chargesheeted as he 6. Manner and Power Satisfactory was instrumental/ of working with others directly responsible for leaking out an 7. Regularity and Punctual official document Punctuality from the file and consequent case in 8. Reputation for Though there was no High Court. I could Honesty specific instances to be never depend on him quoted yet there were and found him reports that he is not unworthy of trust. His above board. continuance in Govt. 9. Whether the official He stays at headquarters service is a liability stays at headquarter on holidays and sundays. on the Government. after office hours and during the holidays. 10. Fitness for promotion. Not yet due. Sd/- D.C. Hissar. He was advised many a times 20.6.89. to improve his style of functioning and pay his personal attention to the job assigned to him but he showed no improvement. 11. Remarks -- 12. Overall assessment I would rate him as an ‘AVERAGE’ official. Sd/- (M.C. Nagpal) City Magistrate, Hissar, 19.6.89.” A representation dated 01.18.1989 was preferred by the petitioner, which was considered by the competent authority and it was decided that the remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner regarding improving of image/integrity be considered as an advise and not as an adverse remarks. As regards, competence/disposal, there is nothing to disagree with the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. He on this basis contends C.W.P. No. 10398 of 1990 -3- that, although, improvement of image and integrity has been held to be an advisory remark, yet it still existed on the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner. As per instructions dated 22.11.1974 (Annexure-R-5), dealing with compulsory retirement/retention of Government employee in service beyond the age of 50/55 years, it has been specifically provided therein that a Government employee whose integrity has been suspected at any stage of his career should not be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years. He on this basis contends that as the comments made by the Reporting Officer and the Confirming Officer stand on the Annual Confidential Report (which has been reproduced hereinabove) premature retirement of the petitioner was in accordance with the said instructions and, therefore, deserves to be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is true that the remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the last ten years were ‘Good’, except the one, which was ‘Average’ for the period 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1989. In the said Annual Confidential Report, which has been reproduced hereinabove, the integrity of the petitioner was doubted. Although, a representation dated 01.08.1989 was preferred by the petitioner and the same was considered and treated as advisory in nature, yet the said entry still exists on the records. That can be taken into consideration, while considering the case of an employee for compulsory retirement beyond the age of 50/55 years. Although, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that advisory remarks cannot be treated as adverse remarks, which may be correct, yet when the while record of the employee is to be taken into consideration, if such a mention is found on the Annual Confidential Report, the same can be taken into consideration for retention of an employee in service. C.W.P. No. 10398 of 1990 -4- It would not be out of way to mention here that the competent authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Hissar Division, vide Order dated 14.12.1989 did not expunge the remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1988-89, but only treated it to be as advisory remarks and it finds reflected in the Annual Confidential Report. The instructions dated 22.11.1974 (Annexure-R-5) only mentions that the record of the whole career of an employee has to be taken into consideration and a Government employee whose integrity has been suspected at any stage of his career should not be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years. The petitioner has been retired prematurely on attaining the age of 55 years. In any case, the report regarding the competence and disposal of the work by the employee has not been changed by the competent authority on a representation preferred by the petitioner which also goes against the petitioner. The latest Annual Confidential Report has to be given more weightage than the earlier one and the Annual Confidential Report relied upon by respondents for prematurely retiring the petitioner is last Annual Confidential Report, which was taken into consideration against the petitioner. Thus, the order of premature retirement of the petitioenr dated 15.06.1990 (Annexure-P-1) is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 20, 2010. sjks.