IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 48 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 23, 2011 Labh Singh …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: None. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 16.2.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the compulsory retirement of the appellant did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, order dated 31.3.1985 (P- 1), compulsorily retiring him, has been upheld. Likewise, order dated 22.11.1985 (P-2), passed in appeal has also been upheld. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from following two concluding paras of the judgment, which read as under:- " A perusal of the track record of the peti- tioner shows that not only did the petitioner earn 14 bad entries but his two years service was also forfeited LPA No. 48 of 2011 (O&M) for having remained willfully absent from duty for 20 days. The petitioner was also found absent on six other occasions and the period of his absence was treated as `leave without pay'. The petitioner also earned adverse ACRs for the period as mentioned in the reply. In view of the service record of the peti- tioner, I find no illegality in the impugned orders (An- nexures P1 to P3) vide which the petitioner was or- dered to be retired prematurely and his appeal and re- vision were also dismissed by the SSP, Sangrur, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. Apart from the above, the petitioner was pre- maturely retired vide Annexure P1 on 31.3.1985 and more than 25 years have elapsed since the date of his premature retirement. Hence, the petitioner is not enti- tled to be reinstated in service because of lapse of time." 2. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to notice that the appellant was appointed as Constable on 9.9.1957 and a bird's eye-view of his service record is available in Annex- ure R-1, which reads as under:- "FORFEITURE Two year approved service was forfeited for remaining absent from duty for 20 days vide order book No. 1422 dated 3.4.79. LEAVE WITHOUT PAY (L.W.P.) 2 LPA No. 48 of 2011 (O&M) i) 23 days L.W.P. vide order book No. 1061, dated 31.7.1977. ii) 13 days L.W.P. vide O.B. No. 5217, dated 1.5.1978. iii) 3 days L.W.P. vide O.B. No. 1124, dated 17.4.1977. iv) 2 days L.W.P. vide O.B. No. 254, dated 20.11.1968. v) 1 days L.W.P. vide O.B. No. 4090, dated 20.10.1976. vi) 1 days L.W.P. vide O.B. No. 1742, dated 31.3.1977. CENSURES i) Censured for not taking interest in Government job during his posting at P.P. Kup Kalan vide O.B. No. 309, dated 18.10.1977. ii) Censured vide on O.B. No. 5119, dated 10.12.1981 for doing investigation of case F.I.r. No. 158, dated 15.8.1979, under Sections 61/1/14, Excise Act, Police Station Malerkotla. iii) Censured vide O.B. No. 1466, dated 25.5.1964, for not adducing evidence as per statement. WARNING Warned for remaining absent from duty for 1 hours and 20 minutes. PARADE DRILL 3 LPA No. 48 of 2011 (O&M) Punished 3 days drill parade for not wearing proper uniform. REMARKS CONTAINED IN THE A.C.R. FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1984 TO 15.2.1985 1. Amenability for discipline Lacking 2. Punctuality Lacking. Disposal of cases very very slow 3. Devotion to duty Poor 4. Suitable for promotion No. He wants im- provements. 5. General remarks As above." 3. A perusal of the aforesaid bird's eye-view of the record would show that the appellant has suffered numerous punish- ments during the period of about 28 years of service. A casual glance at his service record would show forfeiture of his service in lieu of absence from duty for 20 days and numerous period of leave without pay. He has been censured many a times and warned for absence from duty. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that he has earned 14 bad entries. It has also been correctly noticed by the learned Single Judge that he was prematurely retired on 31.3.1985 and there is no possibility of re- instating him in service. We feel that even otherwise no case is made out for interference because it is well settled principle of law that compulsory retirement is aimed at removing the dead- wood and inefficient. Such orders are made keeping in view the larger public interest. It is well settled that the Courts would not interfere with the exercise of power by the executive authorities if there is sufficient material available on record to sustain the order 4 LPA No. 48 of 2011 (O&M) of compulsory retirement. In such a situation the conclusion of the department that a public servant has lost utility for public service and deserve to be retired compulsorily should not ordinar- ily be interfered with. The principles governing the question of compulsory retirement were exhaustively examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Dis- trict Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299. After analysing and referring to a large number of judgments including the judg- ment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 188, the fol- lowing propositions were framed:- "(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a pun- ishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is ex- cluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appel- late court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary - 5 LPA No. 48 of 2011 (O&M) in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally in- clude the entries in the confidential records/char- acter rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a gov- ernment servant is promoted to a higher post not- withstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon senior- ity. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse re- marks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for inter- ference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above." 4. If we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), no doubt is left that the ap- 6 LPA No. 48 of 2011 (O&M) pellant has lost utility for the public service. About 50% of his re- ports were adverse. There were a number of instances when he was found absent from duty and his leave without pay was sanc- tioned. Equally, there was forfeiture of his service. Therefore, in the light of the above principles we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Ac- cordingly, the appeal does not merit admission and is, thus, hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 23, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 7