IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9547 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 29, 2009 AJMER SINGH RAMANA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate, with Ms. Deepika, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) On 14.7.2009, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been retired prematurely, however, while passing the order (Annexure P-1) at issue, which is clearly stigmatic. Learned counsel has referred to the order in extenso. Learned counsel has relied on Shri O.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab & Another, 1981(1) SLR 577 to contend that if the order is penal while compulsorily retiring an officer, Civil Writ Petition No. 9547 of 2008 2 without holding an enquiry, it is rendered illegal. Learned counsel has also relied on Major Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others, 2000(5) SLR 141 . Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure P-5 i.e. précis of ACRs to state that for the period 2000-2001, the Reviewing Officer had not agreed with the remarks of the SSP. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the ACRs for the period post 2005 have not been reproduced which are ‘outstanding’ and `very good’ and would have been relevant for taking a decision in regard to premature retirement. Learned counsel for the respondent-State prays for time to take specific instructions in the above regards. Adjourned to 29.7.2009.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that a memorial has been received from the petitioner, which is under active consideration of the respondents. The record, including the Annual Confidential Reports, have been called for so as to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. The respondents would be required to take a decision on the memorial within 15 days from today. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court. July 29, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?