Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. K.C. Gambhir  INSC 455 (24
AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI
learned counsel for both the sides.
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1996 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P.No.6073 of 1996.
respondent was an employee of Haryana State Electricity Board. He was retired
from service on 3rd
February, 1994, about
9 months before the date of superannuation. He challenged that action of the
appellant Board by filing a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was the case of the respondent
that he was promoted as Executive Engineer on 19th February, 1977. when he attained the age of 50 years his case was
considered for retirement/retention in service. It was decided on 30.11.1986 to
continue him in service. Again his case was considered when he attained the age
of 55 years and it was decided on 30.11.1991 to continue him in service. His
service record was good, as on the basis of overall assessment for the last 10
years, the percentage of good reports was 77%. It was, therefore, not proper
for the appellant to retire him before he attained the age of 58 years. He had
challenged the said action as arbitrary and illegal.
disputed on behalf of the appellant before the High Court that service record
of the respondent was good.
pointed out that by an order dated 4th August, 1993 he was punished by stopping his two
increments and a recovery of Rs.14,960.50 was ordered. He was again punished by
an order dated 26th
October, 1995 and Rs.7,197/-
were ordered to be recovered.
High Court after perusing the Confidential Reports for the years 1983-84 and
onwards found that they did not justify respondent's compulsory retirement just
9 months before the date of superannuation. The High Court was of the view that
the two punishments, imposed on him, were not for serious acts of misconduct.
It took note of the fact that no act of misconduct was alleged against him
after he was granted extension at the age of 55 years. It, therefore, allowed
the petition, set aside the impugned order of retirement and held that he was
entitled to continue in service with all benefits till the actual date of
contention of Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the High
Court failed to appreciate that the order, compulsorily retiring the
respondent, was passed by the appellant on the basis of his service record. He
also submitted that the appellant did not retire him earlier when his case was
taken up for consideration on attaining the age of 50 and 55 years because of pendency
of his representation and a departmental inquiry. Soon after the inquiry was
over the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel for the respondent, on
the other hand, raised the same contentions which were raised before the High
record of the case discloses that in the Confidential Report for the year
1985-86 an adverse remark was made that his integrity was doubtful. At the time
when he attained the age of 50 years, his case was taken up for consideration
for his retention or retirement but it was not thought proper to retire him
then as his representation against the adverse remark was still not decided.
His case was again taken up for consideration when he attained the age of 55
years. At that time also the appellant did not think it fit to We, therefore,
allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court
and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.