IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.239 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.7.2009 Gaj Raj Singh -----Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana and another Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. A.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge dated 17.9.2008, dismissing the writ petition against order of compulsory retirement dated 17.11.1987. 2. The appellant joined service in the Panchayat Department of Haryana and after attaining the age of 55 years, his service record was reviewed and order of compulsory retirement was passed under Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I Part I, as applicable to Haryana. In the service record, there are entries of ‘doubtful integrity’ during the years 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, entry in the service record is LPA No.239 of 2009 ‘Average’. A criminal case was also registered against him, in which he was acquitted. 3. Contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that more than 70% of his reports were good and, therefore, order of compulsory retirement was not called for. 4. Learned Single Judge held that goods reports to his credit were less than 70% and his integrity was not good and thus, order of compulsory retirement did not call for any interference. Reliance was placed, inter-alia, on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299, laying down that order of compulsory retirement was not a punishment and if an opinion was formed that it was in public interest to retire a government employee, principles of natural justice were not attracted and order could be passed on subjective satisfaction which could be interfered with only if it is malafide or based on no evidence or was arbitrary. The entire record had to be considered, more importance being given to record and performance during the later years. Un-communicated adverse entries could be taken into consideration. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 LPA No.239 of 2009 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a DB judgment of this Court in K.K.Vaid v. State of Haryana, (1990) 1 SLR 1, wherein instructions laying down that atleast 70% of the reports for the last ten years should be good, were held to be ultravires the statutory rules. 7. We do not find any merit in the contention raised. In view of their being valid basis for requisite satisfaction, there could be no interference with the order of compulsory retirement. Their being three adverse entries of ‘doubtful integrity’, the opinion that it was in public interest to retire the appellant, could have been validly formed. 8. No ground is made out for interference with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge July 08, 2009 (Daya Chaudhary) ‘gs’ Judge 3