IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: LPA No.451 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION : January 09,2009 STATE OF HARYANA ETC. .......APPELLANTS VERSUS LAL CHAND DALAL ......RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, D.A.G., Haryana for the appellants-State. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The State of Haryana has filed this Letters Patent Appeal, impugning the judgment dated 11-12-2002, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the order of pre-mature retirement passed against respondent No.1-Lal Chand Dalal, Superintendent Jail, Sonepat was quashed. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No.1-Lal Chand Dalal joined service in the Erstwhile State of Punjab as Assistant Superintendent Jail on 28-06-1962. In 1966, his services were allotted to the State of Haryana. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent Jail in 1970 and as Superintendent Jail in 1985. On 09-06-1995, the respondent herein was prematurely retired in pursuance to the provisions contained in Rule 5.32-A (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I Part I, as applicable to LPA No.451 of 2003 -2- the State of Haryana. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner preferred CWP No.9253 of 1995 which was allowed by the Single Judge vide judgment dated 11-12-2002 by quashing the order dated 09-06-1995 and imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the respondents. While quashing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the Confidential Reports of respondent No.1 for the last 10 years preceding his retirement from service and it was found as under :- “ It is an undisputed position that in the ten years preceding his retirement from service, the petitioner had earned eight good reports and one very good report. For the remaining year i.e.1991-92 also, he had earned good reports except for a short period of three months and ten days. The adverse remarks recorded by respondent No.3 casting doubt on the petitioner's integrity was primarily founded on the complaint made by a relation of one of the prisoners in the matter of deposit of Rs.20,000/- in the P.F. Account of the prisoner. In the preliminary enquiry conducted by Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, the petitioner was not found guilty of charge. The only thing found against him was that he had pressurized the warder to make correction in Register no.16. In his note dated 21-09-1994, the then Jail Minister observed that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was simple and only the minor punishment was warranted. The same was approved by the then Chief Minister. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner also resulted in the imposition of the mildest penalty of censure and that too after his retirement. In the backdrop LPA No.451 of 2003 -3- of these facts, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that entry casting adverse reflection on the integrity of the petitioner was totally unfounded and unjustified and the government committed a serious illegality by rejecting his representation. In this context, it is appropriate to observe that the employee does not earn good or bad reputation in a day or few days or month. The reputation for integrity (good or bad) is earned after performing duties for a pretty long period of time and the employee who is rated as honest and efficient for 10 years cannot over-night become dishonest. Therefore, before recording an entry casting doubt on the integrity of an employee, the employer/concerned officer must carefully examine the material available before him and record such entry only if he is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that an otherwise honest employee has suddenly become dishonest. In the present case, no material whatsoever was available before respondent No.3, which could justify the uncharitable remark on the integrity of the petitioner. Before this Court also, no material has been produced by the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General to justify the said remark. The reasons, if any, recorded by the government for rejecting the representation made by the petitioner have also not been produced before me. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that respondent no.3 had recorded adverse remarks relating to the integrity of the petitioner without any material and the State Government committed a serious illegality by rejecting his representation made for expunging the same. In any case, the adverse remarks relating to the integrity of the petitioner will be deemed to have been washed off by virtue of his exoneration in the departmental enquiry in so far as the allegation casting doubt on his integrity is concerned.” LPA No.451 of 2003 -4- Learned counsel for the State has argued that as there was the one adverse entry against the respondent, hence, the order dated 09-06-1995, vide which, the respondent was pre-maturely retired, is absolutely justified. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly shows that in the 10 years preceding the retirement of the respondent, he had earned 8 good reports and one very good report. There was an adverse remarks against the respondent only for a period of three months and ten days. These remarks were also set aside in a preliminary enquiry conducted by Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana. The Jail Minister, in his note dated 21-09-1994, observed that the allegations levelled against the respondent were simple and only minor punishment was called for. These remarks were also approved by the Chief Minister. Thus, the adverse remarks relied upon by the State while passing the order of pre-mature retirement stood washed off. In this view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere in the judgment dated 11-12-2002 and, accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE January 09, 2009 gurpreet