IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14157 of 1990 Date of Decision:- 13.02.2008 Joginder Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.D.S.Walia, Advocate vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.5.1990 (Annexure P-1) whereby, in purported exercise of powers under Rule 3(i)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (in short, the Rules), the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on completion of 25 years of qualifying service. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner-Joginder Singh (since deceased and represented through legal representatives) joined the Punjab Police as a Selection Grade Constable on August 14, 1961. He was promoted as a Head Constable on 27.12.1962, followed by his further promotion as Officiating Assistant Sub Inspector on 15.5.1979. Thereafter, he was deputed to undergo the Upper School Course held from October,1986 to March 1987 and upon successful C.W.P. No.14157 of 1990 -2- completion thereof, the petitioner was further promoted as Officiating Sub Inspector on 15.11.1987. While serving in the rank of Sub Inspector, the petitioner served in different police stations including as an Additional Station House Officer at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran, where he came to be posted in January, 1990. It is the petitioner's case that he possessed unblemished service record through out and no adverse report, especially regarding his efficiency or integrity, was ever conveyed to him. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 15.5.1990 (Annexure P-1) retiring him prematurely “in public interest.” In their written statement, the respondents have disputed none of the facts referred to above, except that as against 27 commendation certificates earned by the petitioner, he was also awarded “punishment of censure” on three occasions between the years 1982 and 1985. Regarding the petitioner's claim that he performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of the higher authorities, the following stand has been taken by the respondents in para 4 of their reply: “ 4. That the petitioner after promotion to the rank of Offg. S.I. Remained posted at PP Kairon, Police Station Jhabal, Police Lines, Police Station City Tarn Taran, CIA Staff and Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran. Rest of the contents of this para are admitted being matter of record.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. On a specific query by the Court, learned State counsel fairly C.W.P. No.14157 of 1990 -3- states that except the punishments of 'censure' referred to above, there is no other adverse material on record against the petitioner. Undoubtedly, Rule 3(i)(a) of the Rules confers upon an absolute power to retire a government employee in “public interest.” The expression “public interest” however, is a well defined connotation. An inefficient, corrupt or liability sort of employee who has become a “dead wood” can always be shown the door by invoking powers under the aforesaid Rule. It,however, does not mean that merely because the Competent Authority does not like an employee's face, that it can shorten his spotless service career. It is well settled that while considering the case of an employee for retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years, as the case may be, his entire service record has to be taken into consideration, with more weightage to the service record of later years. Adverting to the petitioner's case, it is the conceded position that never ever there is any adverse report impinging upon his integrity or efficiency. It is also not denied that 'censure' is one of the mildest 'minor punishment' and does not obstruct even promotion of an employee. The punishments of 'censure' were awarded to the petitioner prior to his selection for the Upper School Course and consequential promotion as Sub Inspector. Under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a police personnel does not earn promotion only on the basis of seniority. The promotion is based upon selection. The petitioner, thus, having earned promotion in the year 1987 on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the so called adverse material, namely, the punishments of 'censure' lost its sting and could not form the C.W.P. No.14157 of 1990 -4- basis to retire him prematurely. The petitioner thus, appears to have been retired prematurely in a totally mechanical and arbitrary manner. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this civil writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.5.1990 is hereby quashed and the petitioner is held entitled for all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay which shall be paid to his wife-Smt. Jasbir Kaur along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. February 13, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE