Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CM-1714-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-702-2024
Reserved on: 24.09.2025
Pronounced on : 14.10.2025
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Senior DAG, Haryana.
****
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, appellant's challenge to his compulsory retirement has been rejected. Review filed in the matter has also met the same fate.
2. At the time when the writ petition was dismissed, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, the learned Single Judge took note of the records of the case and observed as under:-
"7. The petitioner herein attained the age of 50 years on 04.05.1997. His record position for the last 10 years i.e. from 1978-88 to 1996-97 was taken into consideration. Seemingly, petitioner though fulfilled the criteria of having more than 50% good record/Annual Confidential Reports, but when his past service record was scrutinized, it was found unblemished. The following punishments were 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:37 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 2 awarded to him besides an enquiry which was under Rule-7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987:-
i) He was awarded a punishment of recorded warning along with recovery of Rs.20,663-36 vide Govt. order No.8/74-
B&R (E)-3-82 dated 05.05.1998 in inquiry case No.84-IC-A-
82.
ii) He was awarded a punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect vide Govt. order No.8/141-B&R (E)-3-80 dated 12.05.1998 in inquiry case No.251-K-78.
iii) He was awarded a punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with future effect vide Govt. order No.8/176-B&R (E)-3-87 dated 11.06.1998 in inquiry case No.247-B-87.
iv) 217-IC-NH-94: He was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the P&A Rules, 1987 vide letter dated 29.11.1999 on account of charge pertaining to local purchases contravention of PWD codal rule."
3. Review application has also been rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that no ground to review the order is made out.
4. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer on 12.10.1971 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer on 11.06.1973. While working as Sub-Divisional Engineer, the appellant was served with a chargesheet in February, 1982. Disciplinary proceedings ultimately concluded with imposition of punishment of recovery of Rs.25,725.22/- and downgraded of Annual Confidential Report (ACR) from 'Good' to 'Average'. This decision was challenged by the appellant in a Civil Suit which was decreed and the order of punishment was set aside with liberty 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 3 to pass an appropriate order after holding inquiry. A fresh inquiry thereafter was conducted wherein an order came to be passed on 07.05.1998 stopping one increment of appellant with future effect. This order has attained finality.
5. The appellant was also charge-sheeted in respect of his working at Kurukshetra between 1978 to 1981. This inquiry, in respect of use of sub-standard material, culminated in awarding punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. This order was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.1984 of 1992. The writ petition was allowed and the order of punishment was withdrawn with a fresh charge- sheet served upon the appellant under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on 11.08.1994. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of recovery of Rs.20663.36/- along with punishment of recorded warning to the appellant. This order dated 19/29.04.1998 has also attained finality.
6. In respect of appellant's working during the period 1986 to 1987 in Bhiwani, he was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 resulting in order of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. This also was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition No.1984 of 1992. The respondents withdrew the punishment order and issued a fresh charge- sheet. This also led to passing of an order of punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect vide order dated 05.06.1998. The appellant has further disclosed in the writ petition that an F.I.R. under 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 4 Section 420/120B was registered against the appellant in which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/-. The appeal against such order of conviction and sentence was ultimately allowed and the appellant was acquitted. It transpires that the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.12278-1997 with the prayer to direct the respondents to conclude the pending inquiries.
7. The appellant has further brought on record material to show that he was considered for promotion by the Screening Committee which ultimately led to his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on 17.12.1998. On 03.02.2001, the appellant was served with three months' notice for compulsory retiring him on attaining the age of 50 years as per Rule 5.32A(C).
8. The appellant contested the notice by filing a departmental appeal contending that in view of a subsequent promotion, the notice of compulsory retirement was liable to be withdrawn. This appeal was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 26.06.2001 holding therein that promotion of appellant as Executive Engineer was provisional and was otherwise incorrect in view of the punishment order(s) imposed upon him. The employers, therefore, came to the conclusion that notice of compulsory retirement was valid and the same has thus been given effect to.
9. Learned Single Judge has noticed the facts of the case and in view of various orders of punishment passed against the appellant his 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 5 challenge to the order of compulsory retirement has been rejected.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the norms laid down by the State for evaluating the credentials of a Government servant for being continued in employment beyond the prescribed age of 50/55 years requires 50% ACR in case of retention beyond 50 years and 70% ACR in case of retention beyond 55 years to be 'Good' or above which is met by the appellant. He, therefore, submits that the decision of compulsory retiring the appellant is in the teeth of the prevalent policy. It is also urged that in view of the subsequent promotion offered to appellant in the month of December, 1998, the previous order(s) of punishment have lost its efficacy and therefore the order of compulsory retirement ought not to be sustained.
11. Per contra, learned State counsel argues that overall service record of the employee has to be considered in order to determine whether the employee deserves continuance in service or has to be chopped off being a dead wood. He urged that repeated punishments imposed upon the appellant clearly reveal that the decision of the employer to compulsorily retire the appellant is based on correct appraisal of the appellant's service records which requires no interference.
12. Premature retirement of a Government servant on attaining the age of 50/55 years or on completion of 25 years qualifying service is conceptualize with a view to provide clean administration, including efficiency and strengthening administrative machinery at all levels so as 5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 6 to weed out the dead wood and those employees whose integrity is found doubtful. Applicable Service Rules i.e. Rule 5.32A(C) of the Punjab Civil Services, Volume-I, Part-I, as applicable to State of Haryana, enables the Government to compulsory retire a public servant on attaining the age of 50 years. Since the object of the State policy is to provide clean administration and to weed out the dead wood, as such, service records of the appellant have been screened by the Committee constituted for such purposes. The policy contemplates that service records of 10 years should be taken into account out of which 50% ACR in case of retention beyond 50 years and 70% ACR in case of retention beyond 55 years to be 'Good' or above. However, the policy also contemplates that entire service record be reviewed and the consideration should not be limited only to Annual Confidential Reports. The State policy in that regard has been consistently followed. The latest policy enumerated on 05.02.2019 provides as under:-
"IV. Perusal of entire Service Record:-
The entire service record of an officer should be considered at the time of review. The term 'service record' is all-embracive and review should not hence be confined to the consideration of only the Annual Confidential Reports......"
13. It transpires that the service record of the appellant was duly examined by the Screening Committee which on evaluation of the service records came to the conclusion that the appellant be compulsorily retired. Consequently, the notice of compulsory retirement was issued to the 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 7 appellant on 03.02.2001. After the appellant made representation against it, the matter was referred to the Chief Secretary, Haryana on 09.05.2001. The Officers' Committee considered the matter on 15.05.2001 and reiterated the previous decision of the Screening Committee dated 08.12.2000 by observing as under:-
"The Officers Committee in its meeting held on 15.05.2001 considered the case of Sh. P. K. Gupta, SDE (now EE) and observed that the decision of the Officers Committee dated 08.12.2000 be implemented on the following grounds:-
a. The promotion of this officer as EE was provisional and incorrect in view of the punishment awarded to him on 12.5.98 and 11.10.98;
b. As on date, his record is not such that he may be allowed to be retained in service.
The recommendation made by the Officers Committee were accepted by the Government. In view of it, the Governor of Haryana is pleased not to change its earlier decision taken vide this office order No.11/40-B&R(E)-5-98 dated 3.2.2001. Accordingly, Sh. P. K. Gupta, SDE (now EE) is retired compulsorily in public interest from Government service with immediate effect."
14. Perusal of the records would reveal that the Promotion Committee in its previous meeting dated 27.01.1997 had not found the appellant suitable for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on account of pendency of three pending charge-sheets against him bearing Nos.251-IC-K-78, 247-IC-B-87 and 84-IC-A-82. It was for this reason that the appellant was superseded by his junior for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on 12.06.1997.
7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 8
15. It is undisputed that the appellant has been inflicted repeated punishments of stoppage of one increment with future effect apart from ordering recovery of Rs.20663.63/- from the appellant. These orders have attained finality.
16. In view of such orders, it cannot be construed that overall service record of the appellant remained unblemished. The main thrust of appellant's challenge to the order of compulsory retirement is his promotion offered vide order dated 16.12.1998.
17. We have perused the order of promotion which clearly shows that the promotion was on ad hoc basis and was subject to approval of Haryana Public Service Commission. There is nothing on record to show that this ad hoc promotion was confirmed or any approval was obtained from the Haryana Public Service Commission. The competent authority at the State Government has taken the view that in light of the punishments awarded to the appellant he ought not to have been promoted. The view taken by the Officers' Committee that the appellant's promotion was provisional and incorrect in view of the punishment awarded to him on 12.05.1998 and 11.10.1998 cannot be said to be without any basis. In our considered view the opinion of the competent authority doubting the credentials of appellant in view of successive punishment orders passed upon him and questioning the ad hoc promotion offered to him is clearly a permissible view which cannot be said to be arbitrary or un-reasoned.
18. Law is otherwise settled that compulsory retirement is not a 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 9 punishment and it casts no stigma. It is equally settled that the Review Committee is required to consider the entire record of service while attaching more importance to the record of and performance during the later service of the employee. {See:- Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 (2) SCC 299}.
19. On behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in S. B. Panihar v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, 2002 (2) SLR 490 to contend that the impugned order is unsustainable.
20. We have examined the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in S. B. Panihar (supra), which, in our considered view, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the Division Bench found that compulsory retirement was in the nature of punishment on account of pending disciplinary inquiry. The Court found that the order of compulsory retirement was stigmatic and punitive in nature and consequently it was set aside. On facts, this is not the case. The Division Bench judgment, therefore, will have no applicability.
21. Reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India and Another, Civil Appeal No.6161-2002 also cannot come to the appellant's rescue inasmuch as the Supreme Court found therein that the compulsory retirement three months prior to his superannuation was passed in a routine and mechanical manner and in the facts of the case was found to be arbitrary. The Court also held that the said order is punitive in nature 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 ::: LPA-702-2024 (O&M) 10 and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. This, on facts, is also distinguishable.
22. Considering the facts of the instant case, we find that the order of compulsory retirement was neither punitive in nature nor contains any stigma and therefore, judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are not of much avail.
23. The opinion of the Officers' Committee for compulsorily retiring the appellant is based upon due consideration of the entire service record which does reflect that the appellant's service career contained various punishments imposed upon him from time to time and therefore, the view of the employer that public interest does not require his continuance in service, merits no interference.
24. Consequently, the instant appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
25. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE [ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE OCTOBER 14, 2025 Rahul Joshi
1. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
2. Whether Reportable Yes/No 10 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 16:22:38 :::