LPA No.1135 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1135 of 2010 Date of Decision 11.11.2010 Raghbir Singh -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana for respondent-State 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 13.08.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order of compulsory retirement passed against the appellant. He has been compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 years on account of his bad record. The learned Single Judge has referred to two serious allegations of accepting bribe involving moral turpitude. In an enquiry held against the appellant he was found guilty of the aforesaid misconduct. However, when he was acquitted of the criminal charge, the respondents commuted the punishment of dismissal to stoppage of LPA No.1135 of 2010 -2- increments taking into account that the appellant has served the department for 36 years. However, when his record was considered on completion of 55 years of age, it was decided by the respondents that he would not be fit to retain in service in the backdrop of his record. Accordingly, vide order dated 08.06.2010, he was ordered to be compulsorily retired. 2. We have seen the original record and a photocopy of the same has been furnished by the learned State Counsel which have been retained on record of this case. A perusal of the ACR for the year 08.04.1998 to 31.03.1999 shows the following remarks: “1. Discipline : Poor 2. Integrity : Nothing adverse report 3. Reliability : Reliable 4. Moral Character: Good 5. General Remarks: Led to the escape of criminals Signature of the Officer” 3. Likewise for the year 2007-2008, the entries are as under: “1. Discipline : Indisciplined 2. Integrity : Dishonest 3. Reliability : Unreliable 4. Moral Character: Not good 5. General Remarks: Dismissed from service for having been arrested in case FIR No. 24 dated 04.06.2007 u/s 7/13 PC Act PS SVB Rohtak. LPA No.1135 of 2010 -3- 4. The aforesaid two entries are in addition to material, which has been considered by the learned Single Judge and there is thus no legal infirmity in the order retiring him compulsorily. It does not warrant interference of this Court. 5. The appellant has become dead wood, inefficient and has outlived his utility. He was not fit to be retained beyond age of 55 years. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE November 11, 2010 Atul