LPA No.1305 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1305 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 01, 2011 ASI Gurbachan Singh .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Sh.Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the appellant. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.8651 of 2010. 2. The appellant, whose date of birth is 29.1.1955, was recruited as a Constable on 1.9.1974 and further promoted as Head Constable and ASI. The appellant was to attain the age of superannuation in the year 2013. He was served with a notice for compulsory retirement on 20.11.2009 and in pursuance to such notice, the appellant was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 27.2.2010, vide order dated 27.2.2010, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala. Such order of compulsory retirement was impugned by way of filing of Civil Writ Petition No.8651 of 2010 and the learned Single Judge having dismissed the petition vide judgment dated LPA No.1305 of 2011 2 21.2.2011, resultantly, the instant appeal has been filed. 3. Shri Parveen Kumar Rohilla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has raised a three-fold submission: a) Heavy reliance has been placed on the instructions dated 11.4.2005 on the subject of extension in service beyond the age of 55 years to contend that while taking a decision to compulsorily retire an employee it is only the service record pertaining to the last ten years that had to be taken into consideration; b) It was contended that the punishments imposed upon the appellant in the nature of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect, another punishment of stoppage of two increments as also the punishment of censure pertain to the years 1994 and 2003 and such punishments lose their effect with the efflux of time; c) Learned counsel has also strenuously argued that the appellant having been promoted on 23.12.2002 to the post of ASI, as such the punishments imposed prior to this period could not have been taken into account while taking a decision to compulsorily retire him. 4. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 5. At the very outset, it may be noticed that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It also does not imply any stigma. It is the entire record of the Government servant that is to be examined while forming an opinion to compulsorily retire an employee. Likewise, all adverse entries, punishments and acts of mis-conduct and mis- demeanour remain part of the record for overall consideration to retire a LPA No.1305 of 2011 3 Government servant compulsorily. Such record does not lose significance even if the employee has subsequently been promoted. With regard to such proposition of law, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2010(4) S.C.T. 663. While adjudicating upon the legality of an order of compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officer of the State of Jharkhand, it was observed in the following terms: “19. In State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 : (1970) 1 SCC 79, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that adverse entries regarding the dishonesty and inefficiency of the government employee in his ACRs have to be ignored if, subsequent to recording of the same, he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar, as it would mean that while permitting him to cross the efficiency bar such entries had been considered and were not found of serious nature for the purpose of crossing the efficiency bar. 20. Similarly, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2218 : (1989) 4 SCC 664 : 1994-III-LLJ (Supp)-268, had taken a similar view on the issue observing that adverse entries awarded to the employee in the remote past lost significance in view of the fact that he had subsequently been promoted to the higher post, for the reason that while considering the case for promotion he had been found to possess eligibility and suitability and if such entry did not reflect deficiency in his work and conduct for the purpose of promotion, it would be difficult to comprehend how such an adverse entry could be pressed into service for retiring him compulsorily. When a government servant is promoted to higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any LPA No.1305 of 2011 4 contained in his service record lose their significance and remain on record as part of past history. This view has been adopted by this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das (supra). 21. However, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das, AIR 1996 SC 2436 : (1996) 5 SCC 331 : 1997-I-LLJ-238, had taken a different view as it had been held therein that such entries still remain part of the record for overall consideration to retire a government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. Therefore, such entries do not lose significance, even if the employee has subsequently been promoted. The Court held as under at p. 240 of LLJ : "7. ... Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension." (Emphasis added) 22. This judgment has been approved and followed by this court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 : (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001-II-LLJ-1140, emphasising that the "entire record" of the government servant is to be examined.” LPA No.1305 of 2011 5 6. Even otherwise, the scope of judicial review in an order of compulsory retirement is very limited. In Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & another, AIR 1992 SC 1020, it was categorically held that a Court may interfere with an order of compulsory retirement only if such order is malafide, is based on no evidence and if such order is found to be perverse. 7. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has taken notice of various acts of mis-conduct attributed to the appellant. Such acts of mis-conduct included awarding of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments in the year 1998, having been involved in the alleged removal of case property under the NDPS Act, being involved in two separate case FIRs under Sections 363/366/342/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 148/149/301/302 of the Indian Penal Code. Yet another punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect and punishment of censure in the year 2003 has also been noticed. While considering the case of an employee for compulsory retirement, public interest is of paramount importance. The dis-honest, corrupt and dead-wood necessarily deserve to be dispensed with. 8. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in upholding the order of compulsory retirement and in dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.8651 of 2010. The LPA is, therefore, devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE JUDGE November 01, 2011 SRM