Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033320
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:033320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
222
RSA-4435-2015 (O&M)
Decided on :07.03.2024
DHARAMPAL ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the judgments and
decrees passed by the Courts below, by which, the challenge of the
appellant-plaintiff to his retirement upon attaining the age of 55 years, has
been rejected. Even the challenge to the ACR for the period from
02.11.2007 to 31.03.2008 has also been negatived and the show cause notice
issued to the petitioner for retiring on attaining the age of 55 years has been
upheld while passing the judgment and decree by the Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that the
appellant could not have been retired from service as, the reasons given by
the respondents-department in the show cause notice is invalid.
3. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that it has
already come on record that the record of the appellant-plaintiff was such
that he does not deserve to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033320
RSA-4435-2015 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:033320
and hence, keeping in view the over all record of the appellant-plaintiff, he
has been retired and the judgments and the decrees of the Courts Below are
perfectly valid as the same have been passed keeping in view the
facts/evidence which has come on record.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. It may be noticed that in the present regular second appeal, only
the perversity in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below is to
be pointed out and the learned counsel for the appellant could not re-argue
the case afresh so as to re-appreciate the facts in order to arrive at a decision
which is contrary to the decision of the Courts below.
6. In the present case, it has already come on record that the
service record of the appellant-plaintiff was such keeping in view the
punishment imposed on him as well as adverse remarks in his Annual
Confidential Report, which record has been taken into account by the
respondents-State while framing the opinion that the appellant-plaintiff
should not be allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years.
Once, the said findings have been recorded on the basis of evidence/facts
which has come on record, this Court will not interfere in the said findings
unless and until, the said findings are proved to be per-versed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out
any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below with regard to
the fact and evidence qua the punishment imposed upon the appellant-
plaintiff and his conduct as well as the adverse remarks in his ACR. Hence,
in the absence of any such perversity pointed out, keeping in view the settled
principle of law that the respondent-department is within its jurisdiction to
form an opinion on the basis of the service record of a particular employee
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033320
RSA-4435-2015 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:033320
as to whether he/she be allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55
years or not.
8 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
recorded herein above, no ground is made out for interference in the present
case, hence the present regular second appeal stands dismissed.
9. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
07.03.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033320
3 of 3
