LPA No. 1880 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1880 of 2010 Date of decision 3 . 5.2011 Attar Singh . Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and another ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. RN Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S.Sra,Addl.AG Hy. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant having lost before the learned Single Judge where he challenged the order of his pre-mature retirement dated 14.8.1996 (P.1) has approached this Court with a prayer that the view taken by the learned Single Judge be reversed and the order of his premature retirement dated 14.8.1996 (P.1) be quashed. 2. A perusal of the written statement filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, shows that the annual confidential reports during the period of 10 years preceding the date of passing of the order dated 14.8.1996 are as under: 1 1986-87 Good Honest 2 1987-88 Average (Honest conveyed) 3 1988-89 Good Honest 4 1989-90 Good Honest 5 1990-91 Average Honest (conveyed) 6 1991-92 Good Honest 7 1992-93 Good Honest 8 1993-94 Good Honest 9 1994-95 Average Honest (conveyed) 10 1995-96 (below average) Honest (conveyed) LPA No. 1880 of 2010 2 It is evident that out of the ten reports the last two reports are 'average' and 'below average'. The appellant earned only six 'good Reports. The Director, Industrial Training had recommended his case for premature retirement at the age of 55 years opining that it was in public interest to retire the appellant who is working as Turner Instructor, ITI Rohtak. Accordingly, the Director- respondent no.2 passed an order keeping in mind the service record of the appellant. 3. It is well settled by a catena of judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely on the showing that while passing the order, un-communicated remarks were also taken into consideration. The mere fact that 'average reports' were not communicated would not constitute basis for quashing order of premature retirement.The aforesaid proposition has been laid down in para 34(v) of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992)2 SCC 299. Another principle which has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 34(ii), which is equally applicable to the case in hand, would read as under: “ 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i)xx xx xx xx (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) to (v) xx xx xx xx “ LPA No. 1880 of 2010 3 4. It is patent from the perusal of the aforesaid para that subjective satisfaction of the Government to retire a government servant compulsorily may form the basis of such an order. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge which in turn is based on the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Satya Parkash Gupta v. State of Haryana and another 1997 SCC (L&S) 1764 and C.D.Ailawadi v. UOI (1990) 2 SCC 328. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for admission of the appeal which is wholly without merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 3.5 .2011 Judge okg