IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5181 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 13.02.2008 Sardari Lal Kumra ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate. vs. State of Punjab & anr. ....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 is directed against the order dated 5.4.1991 (Annexure P-15) whereby, in purported exercise of the powers under Rule 3(i)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services ( Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, the petitioner was ordered to be retired from service prematurely with effect from 5.4.1991. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner who was working in the Transport Department, Punjab, was firstly promoted as Works Manager in September, 1975, followed by his further promotion as General Manager in his own pay scale vide order dated 20.9.1979. Vide memo. dated 21.2.1989 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner C.W.P. No.5181 of 1991 (O&M) -2- was conveyed the following adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 1981- 82: “ a) Reputation for : Does not enjoy good reputation Honesty. for honesty. i)Acquaintance with He is not fully acquainted with rules and regulations: rules and regulations. He committed serious financial irregularities and indulged in malpractices and mal-administration with vested interests to favour the parties. He caused heavy financial loss to the administration. Whereas Jalandhar-I depot incurred Rs.0.83 lakh loss or loss in the year 1981-82 as compared to the year 1980-81, Jalandhar-II depot suffered excess loss of Rs.8.98 lakhs during the year 1981-82 when compared to year 1980-81. The following cases involving serious financial irregularities mal-practices and favouritism were referred to higher authorities; Misappropriation of batteries from PR- Jalandhar-II, Loss amounting to Rs.42,000/-. Case referred to HO vide No. 19662/DMJ dated 30.6.82: 1) Excessive recruitment to the posts of Conductors. Case referred to HO vide D.O. No.6790/DMJ/EA 4 dated 4.5.81. 2)Misuse of residential telephone for personal/private use, causing loss of Rs.3600/-. Case referred to HO vide No.9611/DMJ dated 3.7.1981. The officer played double role at the time of C.W.P. No.5181 of 1991 (O&M) -3- strikes dated 27.5.81 which was detrimental to the interests of service. Case referred to the HO vide No.9345/DMJ/EA5 dated 26.6.81. 4) Encroachment at Bus-Stand, Jalandhar. Case referred to Government vide D.O. No.506/CAI dated 30.5.81, addressed to Shri Sada Nand, IAS, Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Transport Department. 5) Charging of higher rates by Adda Licences than those fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar. Case referred to H.O. Vide no.8771/DMJ dated 15.6.81. '' Even prior thereto, vide memo dated 3.10.1983, the adverse remarks for the year 1982-83that “he does not enjoy good reputation for honesty” were conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner represented against both the above-stated reports. His representation dated 16.12.1983 against the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 1982-83 was duly considered and rejected vide order dated 21.9.1989 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner sent a second representation also, followed by reminders (Annexures P-7 to P-9) thereto. However, after re-consideration, the Competent Authority turned down the subsequent representation/reminders also vide order dated 19.3.1991 (Annexure P-10). Meanwhile, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner which culminated into imposition of major punishment of stoppage of his two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 20.2.1985. He was awarded yet another punishment of 'withholding of his C.W.P. No.5181 of 1991 (O&M) -4- promotion for a period of two years' vide order dated 27.11.1990. In addition, the State Vigilance Bureau also charge-sheeted him for possessing assets “disproportionate to his known sources of income''. Some minor punishments had also been awarded to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner's plea that his representation against the adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 1981-82 remained undecided, is assumed to be correct, yet the stinking service record of the petitioner fully justifies the view taken by the Competent Authority that his retention in service was not in 'public interest'. No interference in the impugned order, therefore, is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. February 13, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE