IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6210 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.12.2010. S.R.Arya …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. … Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.1999 whereby the petitioner has been compulsory retired under Rule 3(1) of the H.P.Civil Services (Pre-mature Retirement) Rules, 1976. 2. As per the rules of the Government the work and conduct of Government officials is to be reviewed on completion of 30 years service to decide whether the officer should be continued in service or whether the officer is dead wood and not useful to 2 the Government and therefore, should be compulsory retired. 3. The main challenge of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 3(1) cannot be used as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings. His case is that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him and since the Government was unable to prove its case in disciplinary proceedings he was compulsory retired and that such retirement is arbitrary and illegal and should be set-aside. 4. The basic purpose behind the rule is that the Government as the employer must be satisfied that the person who is working under it is of unimpeachable integrity; he is useful to the Government and his continuation will not in any way adversely affect the Government. In case the integrity of the employees is doubtful and public interest requires that he should not be retained in service or it is found that he has outlived his utility and has become dead wood then the employee can be retired. 5. To consider these facts, I had called for the records of the case and have gone through the report of the Committee constituted to consider the case of the petitioner. This Committee consisted of 3 the Chief Secretary to the State of Himachal Pradesh, Financial Commissioner (Housing) to the State of H.P. and Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Personnel) to the State of H.P. This was a high powered Committee and from the record I find that the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been charge-sheeted on a number of occasions, warnings had been issued to him and even his service records show that on a number of occasions he had only been graded as an average or below average officer. In fact, on perusal of the record I find that in two of the inquiries the Inquiry Officers submitted the reports holding the officer guilty though these factors were not taken into consideration by the Committee because the Committee only took into the consideration the fact that inquiry proceedings are pending and not the report of the Inquiry Officers. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the petitioner has been dealt with in an arbitrary or illegal manner. The Committee on consideration of relevant factors has come to the conclusion that the petitioner should be retired from service. 6. In view of the record produced before me, which I have carefully scrutinized, it is more than 4 apparent that the decision to retire the petitioner has been taken on relevant considerations and therefore, calls for no interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 15th December, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.