Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prithi Singh Son Of Shri Giani Ram vs The State Of Haryana Through The ... on 5 February, 2003
Author: N.K. Sud
Bench: N.K. Sud
JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J.
1. The petitioner retired as Inspector, Industries, from the State of Haryana on 31.8.1976. He has approached this Court with the grievance that a cut of Rs. 10/- per month in his pension has been wrongly imposed by the respondents vide order dated 2.5.1977, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the action is based on unsatisfactory record of service. The grievance of the petitioner is that no adverse report had ever been communicated to him during his entire service and, therefore, there was no justification in imposing the cut.
2. Written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed by Shri K.R. Awasthy, Joint Director (Administration), Directorate of Industries, Haryana, Chandigarh, wherein it has been pointed out that prior to his retirement on 31.8.1976, the petitioner had been served with a show cause notice dated 5.8.1976 (Annexure R-2) proposing the aforesaid cut. This notice duly contained the details of the service record considered as unsatisfactory. It was only after considering the reply of the petitioner to the aforesaid notice that the impugned order (Annexure P-3) has been passed.
3. On the last date of hearing, the Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, had sought time to go through the record and seek instructions in the matter. He has stated that the record being very old, could not be traced. He, however, relies on the notice issued to the petitioner on 5.8.1976 to show that his service record was not satisfactory. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, has furnished a copy of the reply in which he had not only disputed the charges levelled against him but had also shown that some of the facts mentioned in the show cause notice were incorrect.
4. A perusal of the notice (Annexure R-2) shows that the following four instances had been relied upon to conclude that the service record of the petitioner was not satisfactory:-
"a) That in his Annual Confidential report for the year 1955-56 it has been recorded that he was untrustworthy and his honesty was doubtful.
b) That his performance of work and conduct during the years, 1958-59, 1966-67, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1973-74, 1974-75 & 1975-76 has been reported to be an Average.
c) That his performance of work and conduct during the year 1967-68 has been reported to be below Average.
d) That during the year 1959-60, he was placed under suspension on the grounds of adopting illegal method of procuring cement for the construction of his house at Rohtak. The enquiry was conducted as a result of which he was found guilty and the State Govt. ordered for the stoppage of his 3 increments wit cumulative effect vide letter No. 8065-4IB(i)62/21701 dated 17.9.62."
5. As far as the remarks in (a), (b) and (c) are concerned, the stand of the petitioner that he had never been communicated any such remarks except for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 remains uncontroverted as no records have been produced by the learned State counsel. In respect of the remarks for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, in his reply the petitioner had duly explained that he had made representations against the average reports given to him and the same had been accepted as was evident from the fact that he was, thereafter, granted extension of service from the age of 55 years up to the age of 58 years by ignoring these reports. In reply to the contents of para (d), the petitioner had submitted as under:-
"d/ This is incorrect, I was suspended and my three increments stopped on account of charges enumerated in the charge sheet at Annexure 'C'. The enquiry officer found me 'not guilty' of the charge (kindly see Annexure 'B'). I was exonerated later and the three increments restored in view of the Court decision vide Director of Industries orders dated 7.8.1972 endorsed to the District Industries Officer, Rohtak with End. No. Admn/39/18/24276, dated 10.8.1972."
From the reply, it is evident that the contents of para
(d) were factually incorrect. The impugned order (Annexure P-3) which is stated to have been passed after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner is totally non-speaking. It does not discuss any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. In the absence of any record produced by the State counsel, the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted that no adverse report had ever been communicated to him during the course of his service. His representations against average reports for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 also appear to have been accepted in view of the fact that he was subsequently granted extension in service from the age of 55 years to 58 years. The case of the respondents that the petitioner was punished for his conduct during the year 1959-60 also remains unproved.
In view of the above, I find no ground to uphold the impugned order (Annexure P-3), vide which a cut of Rs. 10/- per month had been imposed in the pension of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order (Annexure P-3) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to costs which are estimated at Rs. 1,000/-.
It is a case of a retired Government employee and the relief should be granted to the petitioner promptly. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents should calculate the relief due to the petitioner and pay the same to him within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to them.