IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 Date of Decision : February 02, 2011 C.L. Nanda ….Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation and others .....Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of order (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3 on 28.4.1980 whereby he was retired prematurely. Quashing of resolution (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 on 28.4.1980 to retire the petitioner and of resolution (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2 on 11.7.1980 while rejecting his representation/review application against the order of his premature retirement, has also been sought. Directions are sought to the Punjab Financial Corporation-respondent (for short ‘the Corporation) to reinstate him as Manager (Finance) with full back wages. Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 -2- According to the petitioner, he joined the services of the Corporation as a Senior Clerk on 15.12.1952 and confirmed as such on 4.11.1953. He was promoted as an Assistant on 15.7.1959, as an Assistant Accountant on 1.10.1964 and as Accounts Officer on 8.8.1971. On account of the hard work done by the petitioner, the then Managing Director vide its memo. dated 27.5.1976 recommended to the Board of Directors for the grant of two advance increments to him. The same were duly sanctioned. He was also granted a special increment when he was a Senior Clerk and twice thereafter when he was holding the post of an Assistant as a reward for his good performance. In the year 1973 when the petitioner was posted as Accountant, he was recommended by the Corporation to participate in the course on Financial Management conducted by the Institute of Public Enterprise University Campus, Hyderabad and again in the year 1975 when he was working as Accounts Officer he participated in the short term training course in computer management conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration as a departmental nominee. The petitioner was promoted to the higher post of Manager Finance(I) i.e. the post of senior-most manager in the pay scale of Rs.750-1250 on 17.8.1978. His appointment to the said post and of others to different posts in the cadre of officers was recommended to the Board of Directors by the then Managing Director-respondent No.4. The Board approved and ratified the appointments by a resolution adopted in its meeting held on 3.11.1978 and did so after carefully going through the service records of all of them. The petitioner efficiently discharged the functions and Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 -3- duties attached to the post of Manager Finance (I). While so appointed, the petitioner officiated in the higher post of Secretary to the Corporation on a number of occasions by orders issued by the then Managing Director- respondent No.4. Further case of the petitioner is that while exercising powers under Regulation 20(2) of the Punjab Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961, respondent No.4 who was the then Managing Director of respondent- Corporation issued an order dated 28.4.1980 and, thereby, directed premature retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. the after-noon of 28th of April, 1980 on the sole ground that the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years and put in more than 25 years of services in the Corporation. The Board of Directors also proceeded to direct premature retirement of the petitioner vide its resolution dated 28.4.1980. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 31.5.1980 to the Board against the aforesaid order of his premature retirement. The Board rejected the same vide its resolution dated 11.7.1980 which was conveyed to the petitioner alongwith letter dated 30.9.1980 of the Managing Director. In the writ petition, the petitioner pleaded that the Board, while disposing of the representation dated 31.5.1980, did not correctly and fully comprehend its contents. The Board did not examine the service record of the petitioner on the basis of which alone the decision on the representation could be taken by it. Rather, the Board acted Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 -4- on the material outside the petitioner’s service record which the memo. of the Managing Director dated 24.4.1980 contained. Neither such material was brought to the notice of the petitioner nor was the petitioner afforded an opportunity to explain it. The Board was not competent to act upon any such material. Further, during the entire course of his service with the Corporation, the integrity and honesty of the petitioner was never doubted. There was no entry in the service record of the petitioner reflecting upon his honesty or integrity and nothing had ever been conveyed to him till he was compulsorily/pre-maturely retired. No reasons were recorded in the order rejecting the representation as to why and how the service record of the petitioner justified his premature retirement. In their reply, respondents No.1 to 3 took up the preliminary objections that the writ petition was belated as the petitioner was retired from service vide order dated 28.4.1980 and he was actually relieved from service on the after-noon of that very day. His review application was rejected on 11.7.1980 and conveyed on 30.9.1980. The petitioner had applied for the payment of balance of his provident fund, gratuity, etc. and drawn all his dues, including provident fund, gratuity, etc. in August, 1980. Consequently, the present writ petition, which was filed in the month of July, 1981, suffers from laches. It was also stated that the writ petition did not disclose infringement of any fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner. He had attained the age of 50 years and put in more than 25 years of Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 -5- service. However, he was retired from service in accordance with the provisions of Staff Regulations of the Corporation. On merits, it was pleaded that in the report for the year 1978-79, the petitioner was given adverse remarks which were communicated to him vide Corporation’s memo. dated 11.1.1980. The petitioner never represented against the said remarks and, thereby, accepted the correctness of the same. Further, the Managing Director of the Corporation had submitted the case of the petitioner to the Board of Directors and it was on the said memo. that the Board of Directors had given approval to retire the petitioner. The Board had taken the decision to retire the petitioner after properly considering his service record, the assessment of the Managing Director regarding the efficiency, suitability, capability and proficiency of the petitioner in the performance of his duties and after having applied its mind. The representation submitted by the petitioner against his premature retirement was considered and rejected by the Board on 11.7.1980 and this rejection was conveyed to the petitioner on 30.9.1980. The order of rejecting the representation was a detailed one and dealt with all the points raised by the petitioner in his representation. Respondent No.4 filed her reply to state that the order to retire the petitioner from the services of the Corporation was passed with the prior approval of the Board of Directors. While arriving at this decision, the Board of Directors took the entire service record into consideration and no inappropriate, irrelevant or Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 -6- extraneous considerations weighed, either with the Board of Directors or with the Managing Director-respondent No.4, to form the opinion that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in the service any further. There was no malafide object to be achieved, nor was any deliberate effort made to get rid of the petitioner by retiring him. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. For the year 1978-79 when the petitioner stood promoted as Manager (Finance) on temporary basis w.e.f. 17.8.1978, he was given adverse remarks, which are as follows :- “There has been no improvement in his work despite the hope that placing in a higher grade might give him the incentive to work. His examination of cases lacks analytical approach. He is easy going, and has no wish to streamline the working of his section at his own initiative.” These remarks were duly conveyed to the petitioner by the Corporation vide its memo. dated 11.1.1980. The petitioner never represented against those remarks and, thus, accepted their correctness. Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 -7- Subsequently, he applied for the payment of balance of provident fund, gratuity, etc. and drawn all his dues, including provident fund, gratuity, etc. in August, 1980. As the petitioner was born on 1.1.1929 and was to attain the age of 50 years on 1.1.1979 and had already put in more than 25 years, the Corporation was to consider his case for retention in service beyond the age of 50 years. On the basis of the service record of the petitioner, the Managing Director of the Corporation vide its memo. dated 24.4.1980 put up the case of the petitioner before the Board. After carefully examining and considering the entire service record of the petitioner, the Board in its meeting held pursuant to the aforementioned memo. resolved that the petitioner, who had crossed the age of 50 years and had put in a total service of over 25 years, be retired from the service of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 20 of the Punjab Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961. Armed with the resolution of the Board, the Managing Director of the Corporation vide letter dated 28.4.1980 retired the petitioner from the service with immediate effect. It is not averred by the petitioner that the Corporation was not competent to consider his case for extension of service beyond 50 years and he could stay in office till his superannuation. Once such a power vested with the Board of Directors, it resolved to retire the petitioner and, that too, after considering the entire service record of the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the order of premature retirement by applying for payment of balance of his provident fund, etc. and all his dues were released in the month of August, 1980. Though no review was provided for in the Regulations Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1981 -8- of the Corporation against the order of pre-mature retirement yet the review application submitted by the petitioner was carefully examined by the Board of Directors on 11.7.1980 and as no merit was found in the same, the review sought for by the petitioner was declined. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 02, 2011 JUDGE satish Satish Kumar 2014.05.14 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh