LexBRIJ MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BRIJ MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA v. STAIB OF PUNJAB MARCH 11, 1987 A [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] B Premature retirement, purpose and object of-Right of Govern- ment to order premature retirement under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil .+- Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975-Adverse entries, effect of-Whether the appropriate authority could take into considerations - ___ past and remote adverse entries in the Confidential Records-If so, upto - ,---- what period-Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, C - 1975 Rule 3 read with Executive Instructions dated 6.9.1975, 4.8.1978 and 22.6.1981, Scope of Under Role 3 of the Pnnjab Civil Services (Premature Retire- ment) Roles, 1975, the appropriate anthority bas the absolute right to retire an employee prematureiy, in public interest after giving three months notice in writing on bis completion of 25 years of qnalifying service or 50 years of age. The rnle does not contain any criteria, or gnidelines for the exercise of power, althongh public interest is specified m the rnle, which means power has to be exercised in the public interest only. The State Government issued a Government Order on September 26, 1975 laying down the guidelines and the procedure necessary to be followed in exercising powers under Role 3 for premature retirement of a Government employee. The order stated that the appropriate author- ity shonld ntilise the power under Role 3 in a judicious manner to retire a government employee on formnlating its opinion by scrntiny of the confidential reports of the employee and by taking into consideration any other snbstantial material, it may have before it. The order further -:f stated that it was not feasible to lay down any absolute terms as to how many adverse entries about inefficiency or lack of integrity would justify the premature retirement but it laid stress that the service record D E F as a whole would determine the merit of each case. Paragraph 6 of the letter further stated that remoteness of an adverse entry, the scrutiny of G the service record of the employee concerned such as crossing of effi- ciency bar, confirmation and promotion to a higher post or any other meritorious service rendered by the employee, would have their relative importance. The order emphasizes that the appropriate authority may consider premature retirement of a government employee if it has reasonable cause to believe that the employee concerned was lacking in H 583 ·~ 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. A integrity irrespective of the assessment of ability and efficiency in work. -t. It further provides that the appropriate authority should review the y· cases of employees on their completing 25 years of qualifying service or their attaining SO years of age. The government issued another order on August 4, 1978 pointing out that while exercising power under Rule 3 the senice of an employee as a whole would determine the merit of each B case but if there was a single entry describing the employee concerned having doubtful integrity, that would justify the premature retirement under the rules. Realising that premature retirement of an employee on ·); ,,. the basis of entire service record which may include stale entry would be unreasonable the government issued yet another order on 22nd June,, .-_ ~· 1981 directing that under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retire- - °"' "";: C ment) Rules, 1975 it would not be desirable to scrutinize the entire senice record of an employee and premature retirement should not be ordered if during the last 5 years the work and conduct of the employee ~ have been good. The appellant who was appointed as Superintendent Quality D Marking Centre (Scientific Instruments) of the Government of Punjab in 1953 was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Tt;chnical) in 1963 and later in 1968 to the post of Joint Director (Industries) which post he continued to hold till he was prematurely retired by Government Order dated 19th March, 1980 issued in exercise of power under Rule 3 of the - Punjab Civil Senice (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The appel- ... E · lant made a representation against the order of premature retirement to the government but the same was rejected, whereupon the appellant challenged the validity of the government order by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of F Allahabad which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.