1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3236 of 2008 (O&M). Date of Decision: 14.1.2009 *** Dilbagh Singh. .. Appellant VS. Managing Director now Chairman, HVPNL & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. N.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay in filing and re-filing condoned. After having lost concurrently before the Courts below, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the instant regular second appeal, impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. The plaintiff-appellant, who was working as Clerk with respondent-defendants instituted a suit seeking injunction against the latter to the effect that they be restrained from relieving him from duties. However, during pendency of the suit the plaintiff was retired compulsorily on 4.9.2001 pursuant to the notice dated 5.6.2001 and hence the plaintiff by amending his suit sought directions for continue on the post till the age of superannuation and salary for the period along with interest @ 18% per annum. The suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that not only the work and conduct of the plaintiff-appellant was below average right from the beginning but he remained dishonest with the Department and even two criminal cases were registered against him besides in two departmental enquiries, he was held guilty and punishment of stoppage of increments was awarded to him. 2 After the contest, the learned trial court dismissed the suit as also his appeal was dismissed by the learned first appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the paper-book carefully. It emerges out from the perusal of impugned judgments that the respondent-Department completely lost faith in its employee-appellant and adverting to his work and conduct, it was found that continuance of appellant in Government job is not in the public interest. There is no dispute to the fact that the ACRs of the plaintiff for the years 3.10.1972 to 1.4.1985 were recorded average/ below average whereas in the ACRs for the year 1988-89 and 1991-92 he was given grading below average and in the column of his integrity it was mentioned as “dishonest”. Although in two criminal cases of cheating and embezzlement he was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt, but simultaneously in two departmental enquiries he was held guilty and was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment. Even it has come on record that the appellant remained usually in drunken condition and entered into quarrel with his colleagues. Even the factum of one departmental enquiry and punishment therein was concealed by him. The afore-said mis-deeds of the appellant when weighed in the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel AIR 2001 SC 1109 and the yardsticks couched in the case of Baikhuntha Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical officer, Baripada, 1992(2) SCC-299, it has rightly been concluded that for better administration, it is necessary to cop off dead wood and thus, for retiring an employee compulsorily his whole service record is required to be taken into consideration and not only of the last 10 years ACRs, for the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Thus, both the Courts below rightly refused to interfere in the order compulsorily retiring the plaintiff- appellant. Even both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that since the appellant-plaintiff did not exhaust the departmental remedy by making a representation against the order dated 5.6.2001, proposing him to retire compulsorily, his suit to that extent is pre-mature in view of the provisions contained in Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Nothing has been shown to take a view contrary from that which has been taken by 3 both the Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings so returned are either perverse or based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 14,2009 Jiten