PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD.AND ORS. versus HARI KLSHAN VERMA

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 27-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 555 
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD.AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
HARi Kl SHAN VERMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 4784 of 2007) 
MARCH 27, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service Law - Compulsory retirement - Order of 
compulsory retirement of the respondent-Additional Assistant 
Engineer at the age of 55 years- Committee took into account 
B 
c 
the entire service record, the disciplinary proceedings initiated 
against him, the punishment imposed, his efficiency in D 
service and confidential reports - Challenge to, on the ground 
that the order is punitive and stigmatic in character - Order 
quashed by the High Court holding it to be stigmatic - On 
appeal, held: Entire record can be scrutinized by employer 
to adjudge the justification of continuance of the employee E 
after reaching a particular age - Past adverse entries did not 
loose significance on conferment of benefit of promotion -
Nature of order judges its character, namely, simpficiter or 
stigmatic - In the order previous misconduct and the 
punishment visited to the respondent, and the decision-
F 
making process of the Committee, the disciplinary 
proceedings, personal records and the reputation was 
reflected - Reputation has insegregable nexus, with his 
ACRs and poor performance - Use of words like "inefficiency" G 
and "not fit" cannot convey the meaning of "stigmatic" - Thus, 
it cannot be said there was non-application of mind - Order 
passed by the High Court set aside - Punjab State Electricity 
Board Service (Premature Retirement) Regulation, 1982. 
555 
H 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The order of compulsory retirement is 
not a punishment. It also does not cast a stigma. But 
when by any incorporation or some reference or 
B otherwise some stigma is attached to the order of 
compulsory retirement, it would be treated as an order 
of punishment, falling in a different compartment 
altogether losing its features of order of compulsory 
retirement under the Rules or Regulations under which 
C he is not allowed to continue after attaining a particular 
age. [Para 11] (566-A-D] 
1.2 There can be no iota of doubt that the entire 
record can be scrutinised by the employer to adjudge 
D the justification of continuance of the employee after 
reaching a particular age as contemplated in the 
Regulations. The submission that the past entries prior 
to the conferment of benefit of promotion lost 
significance, thus, the competent authority could not 
E have relied upon the same while passing an order of 
compulsory retirement, cannot be accepted.(Paras .12 
and 16] [566-E; 569-B-C] 
1.3 On an anxious and careful scrutiny of the 
F words used in the order, there can be no quarrel over 
the fact that previous misconduct and the punishment 
visited to the respondent have been stated. The 
decision-making process of the Committee !)as been 
G reflected in the order. It includes the disciplinary 
proceedings, personal records and the reputation. The 
reputation has insegregable nexus, as is seen with his 
ACRs and poor performance. The use of words like 
"inefficiency" and "not fit" cannot be put on a pedestal 
H to confer on them such status so that they convey the 
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. v. HARi KISHAN 557 
VERMA 
meaning of "stigmatic". It cannot be remotely so. It is A 
the nature of order which will judge its character, namely, 
simpliciter or stigmatic. The counsel for the respondent 
, canvassed that one of the punishment was set aside. In 
such a case it would not make any difference. It cannot 
be said there was non-application of mind. The entire B 
record was scrutinized, valid punishments were taken 
into consideration and the ACRs were critically 
scrutinized. The order, dwells totally in a different realm 
than the order passed in *RK. Panjetha's case. The C 
distinction is obvious and same has been obviously 
missed by the H 
igh Court, which makes its order 
fallacious. Thus, the order passed by the High Court is 
set aside. The respondent would reap all the benefits of 
compulsory retirement and be paid all his dues. [Paras o 
18 and19] [570-E-H; 571-A-E] 
*R. K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam 
Ltd. & Another (2002) 10 SCC 590 - referred to. 
State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das 1996 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 559: (1996) 5 SCC 331; State of 
Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel 2001 (2) SCR 170: 
(2001) 3 SCC 314; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of 
Jharkhand and Others 2010
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.