C.W.P No. 1414 of 1994 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1414 of 1994 Date of decision : March 19, 2009 ASI Ram Chander ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 4.6.1993 and 18- 21.6.1993 whereby he was firstly compulsory retired, and secondly his retirement benefits were held to be kept in abeyance till such time that the trial in case FIR No.496, dated 14.8.1991, registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC at Police Station City Hisar was concluded and he was acquitted of the charges. As regards the second argument is concerned, it is not disputed that the petitioner has been getting pension since 1996. As regards the order C.W.P No. 1414 of 1994 ::2:: of compulsory retirement, in the written statement it has been pointed out that the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 24.12.1981 to 31.3.1982, 2.8.1982 to 5.2.1983, 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985 and 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1986. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada 1992 AIR (SC) 1020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion :- (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the C.W.P No. 1414 of 1994 ::3:: case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter-of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above.” In my opinion, the parameters mentioned in sub para (iii) above are not satisfied in the present case. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 19 , 2009. JUDGE `kk'