Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.C. GAMBHIR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/1997
BENCH:
S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
NANAVATI, J.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
This 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.
The 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.
It was disputed on behalf of the appellant before the
High Court that service record of the respondent was good.
It was 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.
The 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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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
superannuation.
The 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 Court.
The 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.