C.W.P No. 6187 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 6187 of 2009 Date of decision : May 18, 2009 Mohinder Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl.A.G 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 order dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby, on review at the age of 55 years, the petitioner was directed to be retired on the basis of the following adverse remarks :- “1. Superior Officers. Bad behaviour. 2. Colleagues Not good. 3. Amenability to Discipline. Not satisfactory. 4. Whether employee stays at his head- No. quarter after closing of office and during holidays. Reply in `Yes' or `No'. 5. Knowledge of Rules, Regulations No knowledge C.W.P No. 6187 of 2009 ::2:: and instructions in general and with about rules particular reference to the work allotted instruction. To him. 6. Ability to apply the relevant Rules and Not Good. Regulations correctly. 7. Assessment of Integrity : Has any thing come to your notice which Yes reflect adversely on the official's integrity or his ability to honestly execute his duties ? Reply in `Yes' or `No'. If `Yes', please give Attached proof details. Annexure P1 to 3 8. Whether there are any `adverse remarks Yes he is habitual on the work and conduct of the employee? Of false complaints Reply in `Yes' or `No'. If `Yes', please give details. 9. Suitability for promotion of higher scale Not fit. Of pay (use term `Fit' or `Not yet Fit' or `Not Fit'). 10. Over Grading bases on the assessment Below average. made from Sr.No.2 to 18 above.” It is not disputed that the representation filed by the petitioner against these adverse remarks was also rejected. The arguments of counsel for the petitioner are two fold. The first submission is that in the past 10 years except for this one report, the service record of the petitioner is at-least good and, thus, he could not have been retired. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adverse remarks are only for a period of nine months and, thus, cannot be taken into consideration. As regards the first argument, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada 1992 AIR (SC) 1020 held as follows:- C.W.P No. 6187 of 2009 ::3:: “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 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 C.W.P No. 6187 of 2009 ::4:: 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.” Consequently, the first argument is rejected. As regards the second argument, counsel for the petitioner relies upon Jagdish Chander Verma vs Haryana State Electricity Board and another, 2007(1) RSJ 726, this Court held as follows :- “13. On examination of the entire controversy it transpires that the whole case of the Board to justify order of compulsory retirement hinges on the report for the period from 9.5.1981 to 12.9.1981. I am, however, of the opinion that the order of compulsory retirement in the present case cannot be justified on the basis of this report. This is primarily for the reason that the report is only for a period of four months. The complete report for the same period has not been produced or brought on record. To correctly appreciate the effect of the report of the part of the year conveyed to the petitioner it was C.W.P No. 6187 of 2009 ::5:: necessary for this Court to have examined the actual report for the complete year. Even the subsequent reports have not been produced for perusal of this Court. In these circumstances I have no option but to draw an adverse inference against the respondents. This is all the more so since the report was conveyed after a period of eight years and in the meantime the petitioner had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the year 1986. I, therefore, find that in the present case compulsorily retiring the petitioner only on the basis of a part of the report for a complete year, is totally arbitrary. While reaching this conclusion, I cannot lose sight of the fact that the Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle, Kurukshetra had in fact recommended the case of the petitioner for extension in service by his letter dated 3.7.1990 after mentioning that there was no charge-sheet etc. pending against the petitioner and that his work and conduct was satisfactory.” In my opinion, the above case is distinguishable since in that case adverse remarks were only for a period of four months. Further, this Court took into consideration several other factors which are not available in the present case. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 18, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 6187 of 2009 ::6::