LPA No.93/2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.93/2008(O&M) in CWP No.5433/1984. Date of Decision: April 11,2008 The Director General of Police and others ............. Appellants through Mr. Amol Rattan Singh,Addl.AG Punjab. Versus Banarsi Lal ..............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? . ***** Vijender Jain ,Chief Justice CM Nos.348-349/2008. CMs allowed. Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 93/2008. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 7.9.2007 passed by the learned single Judge vide which the LPA No.93/2008(O&M) 2 impugned order dated 3.7.1984 (Annexure P-1), prematurely retiring respondent- Banarsi Lal from service, has been quashed. The facts in brief are that respondent-Banarsi Lal was working as a Head Constable with Punjab Police when he was prematurely retired under rule 3 (1) (a) of Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 at the age of 50 years, vide impugned order dated 3.7.1984 (Annexure P-1) after having completed almost 34 years of qualifying service. It is apparent from the record that to justify the said action of the appellants against the petitioner, there is only one adverse Annual Confidential Report for the period from 1.4.1980 to 30.9.1980, wherein it is mentioned that “his reputation for honesty” was “not satisfactory” and two punishments of censure prior to the period of his passing of efficiency bar are available. Except this, nothing adverse for any other period during the 34 years' service of respondent-Banarsi Lal in the police force has been found or conveyed. The learned single Judge after a careful consideration of the material on record has found that the appellants were not justified in prematurely retiring respondent no.1 and thus quashed the impugned order dated 3.7.1984 (Annexure P-1) and further moulded the relief granted in view of the fact that the respondent had reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition. We are also of the view that entry in the column of integrity LPA No.93/2008(O&M) 3 of respondent no.1 as “being not satisfactory” would not mean that the integrity was doubtful. It merely suggests that the Reporting Officer did not find his reputation for honesty upto a satisfactory level so as to be recorded to be good or average or otherwise. It, by no stretch of imagination, can be inferred to mean that integrity of respondent was doubtful. We do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal, hence the same is dismissed in limine. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE April 11, 2008 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE