Mohinder Singh Yadav vs State Of Haryana Through Its Secy. To ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10706 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohinder Singh Yadav vs State Of Haryana Through Its Secy. To ... on 3 July, 2024

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082511



CWP-10270-1998
          1998(O&M)                                                   -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

203                                               CWP
                                                  CWP-10270-1998(O&M)
                                                  Date of Decision: 03.07.2024

MOHINDER SINGH YADAV                                              ...Petitioner(s)

                                        Versus

STATE OF HARYANA                                                  ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:-     Mr. R. K. Malik,
                         Malik Sr. Advocate with
              Mr. Anshul Labana,
                            La     Advocate
              for the petitioner.
                      petitioner

              Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.

              ***
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA,
          DAHIYA J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed, inter alia alia, seeking a writ of

certiorari quashing the order dated 23.06.1998 23.06.1998, Annexure P-11, prematurely

retiring the petitioner from service in public interest under provisions of Rule

3.26 (d) and (e) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule Rules, Volume I, Part I, as

applicable to the State of Haryana, Haryana, with effect from 23.06.1998 23.06.1998. At the outset,

learned senior counsel has confined prayer in the petition to grant of

pensionary benefits alone.

2. The petitioner, born on 10.10.1942 10.10.1942, is an ex-serviceman.

serviceman. He

joined the respondent-Department respondent Department as Assistant Director/Principal, Industrial

Training Institute (ITI) on 15.06.1989.

15.06.1989. While in service from 1989 1989-90 90 to

1997-98, his grading was 'good and honest' for six out of eight years; it was

'average average and honest' honest for the remaining two years, as mentioned in the written

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082511

CWP-10270-1998 1998(O&M) -2-

statement filed by the respondents.

r It has further been stated therein that the

petitioner indulged indulg in wrong practices in making admissions to different

trades of ITI, created creat groupism in the Institute nstitute, and was incompetent to

maintain discipline there. He was caught red-handed handed while accepting bribe on

01.08.1997,, leading to registration of a criminal case case, bearing FIR No.645,

dated 01.08.1997, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, Police Station Narnaul.

Narnaul. Another criminal case was registered against him

by the Vigilance Bureau, Bureau bearing FIR No.04, dated 22.03 22.03.1991, .1991, under

Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station State Vigilance Bureau,

Gurgaon, for making irregular purchases. Apart from that that, he was charge--

sheeted under Rule 2.2-B, 2.2 7 and 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment

and Appeal) Rules, vide three separate charge sheets dated 27.05.2001,,

06.10.1995 and 22.01.1998.

2.1. A High-Powered Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship

of the Chief Secretary to consider/review cases of officers/officials for

retention in Government service after fifty-eight eight years of age age, decided to retire

him from service in public interest, vide impugned or order dated 23.06.1998, on

the basis of overall facts and circumstances his case, as aforementioned. Since

he had less than ten years of service to his credit on the date of compulsory

retirement, he was held not entitled to pensionar pensionary benefits by the Department.

2.2. During pendency of the petition, petition the Department dropped all thee

three charge sheets issued against the petitioner vide separate orders pa passed ssed by

to that effect;; (i) order o dated 25.02.2003 .2003 (pertaining to charge sheet dated

27.05.2001),, Annexure P-18; (ii) order dated 14.03 14.03.2003 .2003 (pertaining to charge

sheet dated 06.10.1995), 06.10.1995 Annexure P-17;; ((iii) order dated 05.12.2001

(pertaining to charge sheet dated 22.01.1998),, Annexure P P-16. Further, he was

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082511

CWP-10270-1998 1998(O&M) -3-

acquitted of the criminal charges as well.

well. Judgments of acquittal have also

been placed on record;

record (a) judgment, dated 06.10.1998, passed by learned

Special Judge, Narnaul, in case FIR No.645, dated 01.08.1997 01.08.1997, under Sections

7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Narnaul,,

Annexure P-19 19, (b) judgment, dated 11.10.2006 11.10.2006, passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, Narnaul in case FIR No. No.04, dated 22.03.1991,, under

Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station State Vigilance Bureau,

Gurgaon, Haryana, Haryana Annexure P-20.

3. In this this factual background, learned ssenior counsel has contended

that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since there was no basis to

compulsorily ulsorily retire the petitioner, that tooo prior to completing ten years'

service. He was wa having consistently good record and his integrity was also nott

doubtful, therefore, he could not have been retired in public interest under

Rule 3.26 of the Rules as well.

4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the order of

compulsory retirement was passed by the D Department epartment keeping in view the

petitioner's record and conduct during service which showed showed, apart from three

pending charge sheets, he had been involved in two serious criminal cases

also. Looking into these facts,, he was rightly ordered to be prematurely

retired. Learned counsel, however, does not dispute the fact that hat subsequently

all the charge sheets issued against the petitioner tioner were dropped/filed, and he

was acquitted of the criminal charges too.

5. Heard.

6. As per undisputed facts on record, the reason to compulsorily

retire the petitioner from service was his involve involvement in criminal cases and

the alleged misconduct due to which he had been charge-sheeted by issuing ing

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082511

CWP-10270-1998 1998(O&M) -4-

three different charge sheets. It iss also not in dispute that while in service, he

had earned seventy-five seventy per cent good ACRs, since for six out of eight years

in service, his grading was 'good and honest',, and had about a year's time to

complete ten years of service to be entitled to pension.

7. It is a settled law that mere involvement of an employee in a

criminal case or his having been charge-sheeted charge sheeted on account of alleged

misconduct, cannot be a ground gro of premature premature/compulsory retirement. A

reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court judgment in State

of Gujarat v Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 314; relevant paragraph

whereof reads as under:

under

12. In the instant case, there were absolutely no adverse entries

in the respondent's confidential record. In the rejoinder filed in

this Court also, nothing has been averred that the respondent's

service record revealed any adverse entries. The respondent had

successfully crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 as well as

at 55. He was placed under suspension on 22.05.1986 pending

disciplinary proceedings. The State Government had sufficient

time to complete the enquiry against him but the enquiry was not

completed within a reasonable time. Even the Review Committee

did not recommend the compulsory retirement of the respondent.

The respondent had only less than two years to retire from

service. If the impugned order is viewed in the light of these

facts, it could be said that the order of compulsory retirement was

passed for extraneous reasons. As the authorities did not wait for

the conclusion of the enquiry and decided to dispense with the

services of the respondent merely on the basis of the allegations

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082511

CWP-10270-1998 1998(O&M) -5-

which had not been proved and in the absence of any adverse which

entries in his service record to support the order of compulsory

retirement, we are of the view that the Division Bench was right

in holding that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

aside...

8. In the instant case, at at the time passing the impugned order of

compulsory retirement against the petitioner, petitioner dated 23.06.1998, commission

of none of the alleged offences had been proved against him, nor had any of

the disciplinary proceedings been concluded establishing the charges of

misconduct during service.

service Besides, subsequently all the three charge sheets

were dropped/filed, dropped/filed and he was acquitted of the criminal charges as well.

Therefore, the very basis to compulsorily retire the petitioner was non-existing existing

not only at the time of passing the impugned order, but ever thereafter.

after.

Accordingly, the impugned order of compulsory retirement is not sustainable

in the eye of law.

9. Being born on 10.10.1942, the petitioner would have attained the

age of superannuation on 09.10.2000, but was prematurely retired on

23.06.1998; the impugned order to that effect is illegal and without any basis,

as discussed hereinabove. Having joined service on 15.06.1989, he would

have completed ten years' on 14.06.1999 to be entitled to pensionary benefits,,

and was illegally prevented from getting the same.

10. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed and the

impugned order, order dated 23.06.1998, is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed

to have completed his service tenure and superannuated on 31.10.2000.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release due pensionary benefits

to him on that basis and pay the arrears as well well, with interest at the rate of six

per cent per annum from the due date to actual payment. These

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082511

CWP-10270-1998 1998(O&M) -6-

directions shall be carried out within four weeks of receiving a certified copy

of the order.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as

having been rendered infructuous.

infructuous

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)) JUDGE 03.07.2024 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6