LexPARBODH SAGAR versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E PARBODH SAGAR v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. MAY 1, 2000 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Service Law : Compulsory Retirement-Employee-Unsatisfactory service records- Tendency to reso11 to unsuccessful litigations-Premature retirement on attain- ing the age of 50 years in public interest-Validity of-Held, employee had become a liability than an asset to the employer-Employer has power under the Regulations to retire an employee in public interest-Order of premature retirement upheld-Punjab State Electricity Board Services (Premature Retire- ment) Regulations 1982-Regulation 3(i)(e). 'Malafide'-Allegations of-Held, there cannot be any set guidelines for proof of malafides-It has to be appreciated from the facts and records of each case-Mere averments not sufficient-Factual suppon penaining to allega- tions must. Words & Phrases : 'Malafides'-Meaning of Appellant was working as Senior Accounts Officer with Respondent- Board. His service record though initially "good'' but subsequently started F deteriorating to "average" "just average" and lastly "poor''. Appellant umuccessfully filed several litigations against the Board challenging his stoppage of increments, supersession etc. etc. Respondent-Board passed an order prematurely retiring him on attaining the age of 50 years under Regulation 3(i)(e) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Services (prema- G ture retirement) Regulations, 1982. Appellant's Writ petition challenging the said order was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of appellant, it was contended that the order of compul- sory retirement was passed 'malfidely', and the member, Finance & Ac· counts who passed the orders was not a competent authority to exercise H the power. 866 PARBODH SAGAR v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 867 ._, ~ Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1. Respondent-Board has power under Regulation 3(i)(e) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1982 to retire an employee in public interest. Thus, Respondent- Board was justified in prematurely retiring the appellant from senice on attaining the age of 50 years in public interest. [878-E-F] B ..... 1.2. Not only there has been a steady decline in appellant's progress as would be appearing from the annual Confidential Report but he was indulging in litigation against the Company one after the other. Instead of improving his capability as an employee of the Board so that the Board c could obtain maximum benefit from out of his services, his litigations spirit prevailed upon him. Thus, appellant become a liability to the Board than an asset. In such a situation an employer is at liberty to take appropriate steps including cessation of employer-employee relationship. [874-G-H; 877-E-F; H; 878•A] 2. The expression 'malafide) is not a meaningless Jargon and it has its D proper connotation. Malice or malafides can only be appreciated from the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set guidelines in r,egard to the proof of malafides. Malafides, where it is ~ alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances. There must be E factual support pertaining to the allegation of malafides. Mere user of the word 'malafide' would not by itself make it established. The Court must scan the factual aspect and come to its own conclusion. In the instant case, tampering of Annual Confidential Reports have been alleged but there is no evidence in that regard to come to the conclusion of malafides. Thus on facts, the allegation of malafides is unsustainable. [877-G-H; 878-B-C] F 3. Chairman of the Board in exercise of his powers is terms of Rule 14 of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Chairman's Powers) Rules, 1959 had prescribed the functions and duties of the members of the Board including the member, Finance & Accounts. Item 6 of the said allocation provides that G all disciplinary cases of Dy. Chief Auditors, Dy. Finance Advisors, Sr. ACs. & A Os. ought to be considered by the Member, Finance & Accounts. Fur- ther, only on the recommendation of the High Power Committee, appellant was prematurely retired from service. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the order of retirement was passed in unauthorized exercise of power cannot be accepted. [870-F-H; 871-A-G; 872-F-G] H A B 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.