Regular Second Appeal No. 2095 of 1987 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2095 of 1987 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: April 22, 2010 Gurnam Singh .....Appellant VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant was prematurely retired while serving as Conductor with the Punjab State Electricity Board on 22.10.1983. He had accordingly impugned this order by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed on 26.09.1984. The appellant had joined as a Driver on 13.09.1956 and subsequently was absorbed in Punjab State Electricity Board. It was claimed that his work and conduct was quite satisfactory. The appellant was served with a charge sheet alleging that he had caused loss to the Board Property. The appellant pleads Regular Second Appeal No. 2095 of 1987 (O&M) 2 that the charge sheet was false. No decision was taken thereon but he was served a noticed on 22.07.1983 intimating that he is being prematurely retired w.e.f. 22.10.1983. The impugned order accordingly was passed retiring the appellant prematurely from service on completion of 55 years of age. The defendant-Board appeared and filed a written statement. It is stated that the show cause notice was served to the appellant regarding the loss caused to the property of the Board Reference was also made to minor penalties which had been inflicted on the appellant. It is stated that on completion of 55 years of age, he could be prematurely retired in terms of the provisions made in the regulations he being a class III employee. As per the respondent, the appellant did not have a good or satisfactory record of service and as such decision was taken to premature retire him on completion of 55 years of age. This order is accordingly justified on these grounds. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed against which he had filed 1st appeal. The only argument which was raised before the First Appellate Court was that the order dated 22.10.1983 was not passed in public interest and that the record of the appellant was not considered while directing his premature retirement. The First Appellate Court after considering these submissions found that the appellant himself had requested the Board that he was not keeping good health and unable to carry out the stressful work of driving. Reference was then made to main exhibits showing that the appellant was held responsible for misuse of Board's vehicle and that his annual grade increment was stopped with future effect. He was Regular Second Appeal No. 2095 of 1987 (O&M) 3 also not allowed to cross the efficiency bar on account of his bad performance. His Annual Confidential Reports were also put on record, which showed that there were adverse remarks regarding work and conduct. On the basis of this material and on account of the fact that the appellant himself was not keen to continue in service, the impugned order was sustained and the 1st appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by observing that the order of premature retirement was in the public interest. The appellant had accordingly filed the present Appeal. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that provisions of Regulation 3 of Punjab State Electricity Board (Pre-mature Retirement) Regulation 1982 had been wrongly applied to the case of the appellant as he could not be treated as a Class III employee but was Class IV employee. This submission was made initially when the Regular Second Appeal had come up for hearing and noticing this fact first, notice of motion was issued and subsequently this appeal was admitted. No such submission apparently was made before the First Appellate Court. As already noticed, the only submission made was that the impugned order was not passed in public interest. To justify the limb of submission that the appellant was a class IV employee, the counsel has referred to notification issued by the Transport Department, which has been reproduced in the grounds of appeal. Apparently, this notification was never placed on record and led in evidence for the Court to consider. It has also not been clarified whether there will be any legal infirmity to order premature retirement of Class IV employee if he continued to perform Regular Second Appeal No. 2095 of 1987 (O&M) 4 badly. As has been noticed by the trial Court, premature retirement of an employee always qualify for pension and thus cannot be treated as punishment. Such an order does not carry any stigma. Such an order is passed on the ground and on seeing if a particular employee would be useful for service or is a dead wood. The order of premature retirement was passed when the appellant had himself voluntarily given that he is not in a position to perform the stressful job of driving. Accordingly, the question of law being raised at this stage, would not call for consideration. There is no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. April 22, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE