Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yash Pal Malik, Deputy Director Sports vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 10 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR814
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi, Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. The appellant was appointed as a District Sports Officer on 25.10.1963 and on 24.10.1989 was promoted as Deputy Director Sports, Haryana. He was, however, compulsorily retired vide order dated 22.5.1992, Annexure P-1 under Rule 5.32-A(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II read with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-1, Part-1, as applicable to the employees of the State of Haryana. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition primarily on the ground that his service record was without blemish inasmuch that in the last ten years before the date of his retirement, he had received 7 'good', 1 'very good' and 3 'average' reports, although he had also suffered certain penalties during the course of his service.
2. The respondents filed a reply to the writ petition and stated that the case of the petitioner had been considered by the Screening Committee and on an overall evaluation of his case, he had not been found fit to be retained in service with the result that the impugned order had been made.
3. During the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge spread over on several dates, it transpired that the fact that vide order dated 1.3.1983 the appellant had received a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect had been withheld by him and this fact had also not been pointed out by the respondents in their written statement, it appeared that the appellant having withheld the aforesaid information, the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not available to him. The learned Single Judge then examined the record of the appellant and concluded that though he had earned 7 'good', 1 'very good' and 2 'average' reports' in the last ten years as averred by him, but in the light of the fact that as he had been administered two warnings before his promotion, one increment stopped after his promotion and he had been prosecuted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for embezzlement etc., he was not a fit person to be retained in servipe. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 26.5.1995. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.
4. Mr. R.K. Malik, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per the Haryana Government instructions, an employee having at least 70% good reports, had to be retained in service and as the petitioner's reports were 80% good or very good, he could not have been compulsory retired. It has also been stated that out of three penalties imposed on him, two, i.e. the first one dated 1.3.1983 and the other a warning administered on 24.3.19889 were prior to his promotion and these must be deemed to have been washed off with his promotion on 10.9.1989, which has been made on the basis of the seniority-cam-merit. It has further been stated that the warning dated 20.12.1991 after his promotion was also insignificant in nature.
5. Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, the learned State Counsel has, however, pointed out that the writ petition had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by passing a well reasoned judgment and the fact that the competent authority had taken a decision on the petitioner's over all assessment, no interference was called for.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.
7. The facts, as stated above, have not been denied. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It clearly reveals that it was primarily based on the faet that the appellant had withheld the information that he had been imposed a minor penalty vide order dated 1.3.1983. We are of the opinion that these factors could not create a ground for retirement as the respondents had themselves thought him to be fit for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director Sports on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit. It is also significant that the appellant has given the details with regard to the prosecution in the criminal case. Mr. R.K. Malik has also placed on record photo copy of the judgment passed in Criminal Case No. 142/1 of 2002, State of Haryana v. Yash Pal Malik, 1 decided on 23.4.2004 to show that the appellant has since been acquitted. We are thus of the opinion that this matter cannot be read in isolation and must be ignored while determining the case of the petitioner. It is true that in the case of compulsory retirement, the overall record, i.e., the good and bad reports and also the penalties imposed on a government employee during his employment would have to be considered. As already mentioned above, the fact that the appellant had 7 'good', '1 'very good' and 2 'average' reports have not been denied. He has clearly 80% good reports in his favour. The question is that in this situation, would the three minor penalties imposed on him constitute a special ground to retire him compulsorily? We are of the opinion that this answer must be in the negative, more particularly in the light of the fact that two of the minor penalties were prior to the promotion and the third one too was only a minor penalty i.e. stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
8. We are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. It is accordingly allowed. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are quashed. Consequential benefits shall accrue to the appellant within a period of three months from today.