CWP No.2238 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 12.01.2010 Naseeru-din, Patwari ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: None for the petitioner Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service at the age of 55 years in public interest vide order dated 16.1.1990 (Annexure P-1) on expiry of three months notice period, in terms of Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, by the Collector, Gurgaon. The petitioner made representation to the Chief Minister of Haryana. Receiving no response, the present petition has been filed. The only ground urged in this writ petition to challenge the aforesaid order is that the same is arbitrary and without recording any reason. CWP No.2238 of 1991 2 In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that in the year 1976, the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis as an unaccepted Patwari. Thereafter a criminal case was registered against him and his services were terminated w.e.f. 3.11.1978 vide order dated 20.4.79 (Annexure R-2). The petitioner was thereafter acquitted of the charge and he was re-appointed vide order dated 29.7.1981 (Annexure R-5). It is further stated that the petitioner earned adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. His work was below average. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner failed to secure 70% “Good” reports for the relevant period and thus, on the basis of his confidential reports, he was compulsorily retired. None is present on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard Mr.Kundu, learned counsel for the respondents-State and perused the impugned order as also the writ petition and the reply. No basis whatsoever has been laid down to challenge the impugned order. Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, Part-I permits compulsory retirement on the basis of service record. The petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest. There does not seem to be any infirmity, legal or factual nor any such infirmity has been pointed out in the writ petition. I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 12.01.2010 MFK