- Court
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Decided
- 23 September 2024
- Bench
- Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
- Case no.
- LPA 404/2020
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-404-2020 (O&M) Reserved on 03.09.2024 Pronounced on: September 23, 2024 Davinder Kumar ......Appellant vs.
State of Punjab and others …..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent Act, is preferred against the judgment dated 12.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7462-2020, whereby challenge to the impugned order dated 17.03.2020 retiring the petitioner prematurely was affirmed and the writ petition was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the Civil Writ Petition are that the appellant/petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 26.10.1990 in Punjab Police and was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in local rank in the year 2016, initially for a period of six months and had been given extensions repeatedly for a period of six months each and had 30 years of service to his credit.
3. A notice dated 13.12.2019 regarding compulsory retirement was issued to the appellant/petitioner, wherein, it was stated that upon expiry of 90 integrity of this document 1
days of the said notice, the appellant/petitioner would stand retired compulsorily. Subsequent to issuance of the aforesaid notice, the appellant/petitioner was considered for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and was deputed for attending 'Intermediate School Course' as per report dated 31.01.2020. However, he was lateron ordered to be prematurely retired, vide order dated 17.03.2020, which was assailed by him in CWP No. 7462-2020. However, the writ petition filed by him against impugned order dated 17.03.2020, was dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated 12.06.2020. Hence, the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contends as under:-
(i) That the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the respondent-authorities after considering the entire record of the appellant/petitioner, chose him to undergo Promotional Training Course at Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector.
(ii) That the learned Single Judge has not addressed the core issue that recommending the appellant/petitioner to Promotional Course by the respondent-authorities is contradictory in itself and accrue the positive right in favour of the appellant-petitioner to continue in service in the absence of any adverse remarks in the training course.
(iii) That the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the appellant/petitioner was neither incapable nor corrupt and thus his premature retirement from the service by the respondent-authorities, is illegal. integrity of this document 2
5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of the judgment dated 12.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge and contends that the impugned order dated 17.03.2020 was rightly passed by the respondent-authorities.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case.
7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- "4. While assailing the impugned order dated 17.3.2020 (Annexure P- 4), the learned counsel made the following submissions:
(i) that the said deputation of the petitioner for attending the said course for the purpose of promotion as ASI virtually had the effect of negating the show cause notice as the entire service record is considered at the time of consideration of promotion;
(ii) that although the petitioner has been ordered to retire prematurely on the basis of his misconduct in the shape of instances of his absence but infact the petitioner had already been imposed penalities for the said absence and, as such, the order of his premature retirement virtually amounts to double jeopardy;
(iii) that as per guidelines issued by Government of Punjab vide letter dated 28.8.2012(Annexure P-6), it is only if an employee is incapable as well as corrupt that he may be compulsorily retired and that since there is no allegation of corruption against the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity and, as such, deserves to be quashed. integrity of this document 3
(iv) that vide order dated 19.8.2019(annexure P-7), passed in CWP No.21698 of 2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion in case of premature retirement, has issued interim directions regarding maintenance of status-quo.
5. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has referred to the reply, which has been sent through 'whatsapp', a copy whereof has been printed by Reader of this Court. In the said reply various instances of absence of petitioner of the petitioner have been stated as follows:- S/. Date% fo/ Ti:e P4ni%9:ent No. E9ic9 pe/iod of aEa/ded Ab%ent Ab%ent
1. 22.12.1999 to 192 days Non duty
02.07.2000 20 hours period and 25 minutes
2. 19.10.2000 to 33 days Service of one
21.11.2000 02 hours year forfeited and 30 permanently minutes
3. 16.01.2001 to 31 days Non duty
16.02.2001 period
4. 6.04.2001 to 186 days Non duty
9.10.2001 07 hours period and 15 minutes
5. 22.10.2001 to 58 days Non duty
20.12.2001 19 hours period and 45 minutes
6. 29.07.2002 to 44 days Non duty
11.09.2002 05 hours period and 50 minutes
7. 15.11.2002 to 44 days Non duty
03.01.2003 04 hours period and 45 minutes
8. 01.10.2003 to 78 days Service of 3
18.12.2003 22 hours years forfeited and 20 permanently integrity of this document 4
minutes
9. 04.03.2004 to 56 days Service of 2
29.04.2004 17 hours years forfeited and 30 permanently minutes
10. 30.03.2005 to 72 days Service of one
9.6.2005 year forfeited permanently
11. 08.11.2011 to 72 days Service of one
20.01.2012 23 hours year forfeited and 30 permanently minutes
14.04.2012 to 57 days Non duty 12.
10.06.2012 02 hours period
15.01.2014 to 104 days Service of 2 13.
28.04.2014 10 years forfeited minutes termporarily
18.06.2014 to 58 days Non duty 14.
19.08.2014 14 hours period and 05 minutes (total 59 days)
29.08.2014 to 47 days Service of one 15.
16.10.2014 23 hours year forfeited 05 termporarily minutes
05.10.2015 to 32 days Absent period 16.
06.11.2015 30 treated as minutes earned leave
27.11.2015 to 48 days Service of one 17.
15.01.2016 15 hours year forfeited 30 termporarily minutes (total 49 days)
02.04.2017 to 78 days Service of one 18.
19.06.2017 07 hours year forfeited 30 permanently minutes
16.11.2017 to 100 days Absent period 19.
24.02.2018 08 hours treated as and 30 earned leave minutes
05.04.2018 to 47 days Service of one 20.
23.05.2018 22 hours year forfeited 30 permanently integrity of this document 5
6. The learned State counsel has submitted that the aforesaid large number of instances shows that the petitioner was habitually absenting from duties and, as such, cannot be said to be fit enough to be further retained in service beyond the age of 50 years. The learned State counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to para Nos.4 to 6 of the preliminary objection in the reply, which are extracted below: "4. That after reviewing the service record of employees, who have qualifying service of 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 years, the committee submitted a list of 40 employees including petitioner, whose service record was bad and the committee recommended to retire them prematurely from service. The copy of the report of the committee is annexed as Annexure R-4.
5. After the receipt of the report of above committee, the respondent No.3 called each of these 40 persons on different dates. The petitioner was also heard personally on 23-11-2019. After hearing them theirs cases were decided according to their merits. Out of 40 persons 23 were allowed to continue in service, 9 were retired prematurely (Forced Retirerd), 5 took voluntary retirement, 1 already got retired and 2 were dismissed from service.
6. After this a prior notice No.160202/CRC dated 19.12.2019 of 90 days was served to all the 9 persons chosen for premature retirement including the petitioner under Rule 3(1) (a) (b) of Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirements) Rules 1975. The copy of the notice integrity of this document 6
is annexed as Annexure R-5. On completion of period of 90 days the petitioner was retired prematurely from the department vide order No.32881-88/CRC dated 17.03.2020. The copy of order is annexed as Annexure R-6."
7. The aforesaid position indicates that the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in a hurried manner and rather the cases were considered meticulously and opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded before issuance of three months' notice on
13.12.2019.
8. As far as the order dated 19.8.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed in respect of some other petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the same would show that the facts are distinct inasmuch as in the said case it has been observed that the petitioner was not served with any prior notice before passing the impugned order. In any case, the said order was passed only at the stage of notice of motion and cannot be said to be any kind of binding precedent.
9. As regards the contention of the petitioner to the effect that since he is not stated to be corrupt, therefore, he cannot be compulsorily retired in view of the instructions dated 28.8.2012 (Annexure P-6), the relevant extract from the said instructions reads as follows:- "1. I am instructed to bring in your kind attention towards the Letter No.6520-2SII-75/38581 Dated 26.09.1975 issued by this department and amendments made time to time therein under which Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules 1975, direction has been issued to compulsory retire the incapable and corrupt officers/employees and further instructed to say that the Govt. is integrity of this document 7
committed to provide an active and good governance, therefore, clean, honest and for providing a efficacious governance, and after considering all the aspects, it has been decided by the Govt. that on the completion of service of 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 years, the cases of the Officers/Employees shall be considered under Rule 3(1)(a) of Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules 1975 for the continuation of their services. The amended sub sections in the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules 1975 will be taken later.
2. The Govt. has constituted a committee for consideration of the cases of P.C.S./P.P.S. and Class A and Class B officers of the State as per procedure and the amendments made time to time as per the directions No.6520-2SII-75/38581 Dated 26.09.1975
3.…………...."
10. By no stretch of imagination the aforesaid instructions can be interpreted to mean that a person whose conduct has not been above board and who has regularly been absenting cannot be compulsorily retired and that it is only in case an employee is 'incapable and corrupt' that such a measure is to be taken. In the matter of conduct in a disciplined force no aberration in respect of the conduct of a member of the disciplined force can be overlooked. Thus, the contention regarding proposed interpretation of the instructions dated 26.09.1975 is devoid of merits and cannot be accepted.
11. The petitioner is a member of the disciplined force and his previous record of absenteeism on as many as 20 occasions shows that he is incorrigible and has been repeatedly absenting himself. integrity of this document 8
Such like conduct in a disciplined force certainly cannot be tolerated. The fact that he was imposed penalities on account of the said absenteeism cannot be interpreted to mean that the act of retiring him prematurely in view of his conduct would amount to double jeopardy. The State is well within its rights not to retain any of his employee beyond the age of 50 in case it is of the opinion that such employee is not fit to be retained beyond the said age and can thus chose to compulsorily retire him as has been done in the present case.
12. The above mentioned conduct leaves no room for taking any lenient view in the matter. Consequently, the impugned order cannot said to be suffering from any kind of infirmity.
13. The petition, as such, is sans merit and is hereby dismissed."
8.k k A perusal of the above judgment shows that the learned Single Judge has discussed each and every argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant and has passed the self-speaking judgment.
9. A perusal of the record as reproduced above, further shows the conduct of the appellant/petitioner. The appellant-petitioner remained absent from duties for a long period and was awarded various punishments. His service record was not upto the mark throughout his service. The appellant-petitioner is a member of disciplined force and the conduct of the appellant/petitioner referred to above shows that he has rightly been prematurely retired from service, vide impugned order dated 17.03.2020.
10.k k Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2020 passed by the learned Single and the same is integrity of this document 9
11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
12. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE
September 23, 2024 G Arora
integrity of this document 10
Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.