CWP No.15947 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15947 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.03.2010 **** Dayal Singh . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was working as a Superintendent Gr-II in the Punjab Forest and Wildlife Department, at Ferozepur. After reviewing his case for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years, the competent authority declined to grant extension and has retired him compulsorily vide order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P6), the relevant extracts whereof, read as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx CWP No.15947 of 2008.doc - 2 – “2. While considering the confidential report of this employ adverse remarks were found regarding his conduct and improvement in work, they were conveyed to him but were not expunged. 3. That Dayal Singh Supdt. Grade 2 Ferozepur Circle has committed serious irregularities in the account of funds. Due to this reason Chief Conservator Forest vide his letter No.28154 dated 12.12.2005 has issued the charge-sheet for major punishment under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment Appeal) Rules 1970. 4. That case of Dayal Singh Supdt. Grade 2 has been considered under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 and as per Govt. instructions issued vide letter No.16/42/78-2PP/7300 dated 22.6.81 and it is decided to premature retire him.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2). Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court. (3). Upon notice, the respondents have filed their counter-reply and in para 2 thereof, the following details of Annual Confidential Reports earned by the petitioner for the year 2000-2001 onwards have been given:- Sr. No . Year Over all assessmen t Remarks 1 2000-01 Average Intelligence reported to be below average 2 2002-03 Average Remained on leave for a considerable period of time during the year 3 2003-04 Average Advised to improve vide P.C.C.F. letter No.16582 dated 30.09.2004 CWP No.15947 of 2008.doc - 3 – 4 2004-05 Below average Adverse remarks conveyed vide P.C.C.F. No.21718 dated 30.09.2005 5 2005-06 Below average Adverse remarks conveyed vide P.C.C.F. No.21899 dated 29.09.2006 6 2006-07 Average Advised to improve vide P.C.C.F. letter No.16457-B dated 03.09.2007 (4). The respondents, however, have candidly admitted that the charge-sheet, referred to in para-3 of the impugned order regarding the alleged financial irregularities does not contain such allegation(s) against the petitioner. (5). The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service can still be sustained in the light of the ‘average’/`below average’ service-record possessed by him? It is well-settled that the compulsory retirement is not a measure of punishment and is resorted to in public interest in order to weed out the deadwood, corrupt and inefficient officials. (6). The petitioner, after his promotion as Superintendent Gr-II, namely, having occupied a supervisory post, has been consistently assessed as an ‘average’/`below average’ official with no zeal to work. CWP No.15947 of 2008.doc - 4 – Such an official being a deadwood, his non-retention in Government service would undoubtedly be in the public interest. (7). No interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (8). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.03.2010 vishal shonkar