http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: BRIJ MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/03/1987

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  948            1987 SCR  (2) 583  1987 SCC  (2) 188        JT 1987 (1)   673  1987 SCALE  (1)556  CITATOR INFO :  R          1989 SC2218  (7)  *          1992 SC1020  (1,2,3,25,29)

ACT:     Premature  retirement, purpose and object  of--Right  of Government 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,  1975 Rule 3 read with Executive  Instructions  dated 6.9. 1975, 4.8. 1978 and 22.6. 1981, Scope of

HEADNOTE:     Under  Rule  3 of the Punjab Civil  Services  (Premature Retirement)  Rules, 1975, the appropriate authority has  the absolute right to retire an employee prematurely, in  public interest after giving three months notice in writing on  his completion of 25 years of qualifying service or 50 years  of age.  The rule does not contain any criteria, or  guidelines for  the  exercise  of power, although  public  interest  is specified in the rule, 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 Rule 3 for premature retirement of a Government  employee. The order stated that the  appropriate authority  should utilise the power under Rule 3 in a  judi- cious manner to retire a government employee on  formulating its  opinion by scrutiny of the confidential reports of  the employee and by taking into consideration any other substan- tial  material,  it may have before it.  The  order  further 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 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  the service record of the  employee  concerned such as crossing of efficiency bar, confirmation and  promo-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

tion  to  a  higher post or any  other  meritorious  service rendered  by the employee, would have their relative  impor- tance.  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 584 integrity  irrespective  of the assessment  of  ability  and efficiency in work. It further provides that the appropriate authority  should  review the cases of  employees  on  their completing 25 years of qualifying service or their attaining 50  years  of age. The government issued  another  order  on August  4,  1978 pointing out that  while  exercising  power under  Rule  3 the service of an employee as a  whole  would determine  the merit of each 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 employ- ee  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 Retirement) Rules, 1975  it would  not  be desirable to scrutinize  the  entire  service 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 Quali- ty Marking Centre (Scientific Instruments) of the Government of Punjab in 1953 was promoted to the post of Deputy  Direc- tor  (Technical)  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 Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The  appellant  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 Allahabad which was dismissed in limine, on August 5,  1981. Hence the appeal by special leave. Allowing the appeal, the court,     HELD: 1. The purpose and object of premature or  compul- sory  retirement of government employee is to weed  out  the inefficient,  corrupt, dishonest of dead wood from the  gov- ernment service. This right of the government is well estab- lished  which  is  generally exercised  in  accordance  with relevant  service Rules. The scope and ambit of exercise  of this  absolute power depends on the provisions of Rules  and it is always subject to Constitutional limitations. [588A-C]     2.1  The Public interest in relation to public  adminis- tration envisages retention of honest and efficient  employ- ees in service and dispens- 585 ing the services of those who are inefficient, dead wood  or corrupt  and  dishonest. Therefore, Rule 3 of  Punjab  Civil Service  (Premature  Retirement)  Rules,  1975  contemplates premature  retirement of the inefficient, corrupt  or  dead- wood which would subserve the public interest. [589D]     2.2  The executive instructions issued as  contained  in the three government orders provide sufficient guidance  for the  exercise  of  power under Rule 3.  According  to  these instructions  the service record of an employee  has  neces- sarily to be considered while taking decision for the prema- ture  retirement  of an employee and if there was  a  single

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

entry  casting  doubt on the integrity of an  employee,  the premature retirement of such an employee would be in  public interest.  In the absence of any details by which the  ques- tion of public interest would be determined in the Rules  it was open to the State Government to issue executive instruc- tions  for  the  guidance of the  appropriate  authority  to exercise the power of premature retirement and the  instruc- tions  so issued as contained in the government orders  have binding character. [590B-D]     3.1  It is now well settled that adverse entries if  any awarded  to an employee lose their significance on or  after his promotion to a higher post. It is also well settled that while  considering the question of premature  retirement  it may  be desirable to make an overall assessment of the  gov- ernment  servant’s record, but while doing that, more  value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the  years immediately preceding such consideration.  It  is possible that a new entrant to a service may have  committed mistakes  and  for that reason he may  have  earned  adverse entries  and if those entries of early years of service  are taken into consideration for prematurely retiring a  govern- ment  employee then perhaps no employee would be  safe  even though  he  may have brilliant record of  service  in  later years.  It  would  be unreasonable and  unjust  to  consider adverse  entries of remote past and to ignore the  good  en- tries  of recent past. If entries for a period of more  than 10  years past are taken into account it would be an act  of digging  out  past  to get some material to  make  an  order against the employee. [591A-E]     3.2  In the instant case adverse entries awarded to  the appellant  prior to 1968 could not be taken into  considera- tion  for  the  reason that adverse entries  for  the  years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65 are legally non-est on  account of  the promotion except two entries awarded to him for  the years  1971-72,  1972-73 the appellant has  not  earned  any adverse  entry reflection upon his work and conduct.  [591H; 592A] Baldev  Raj  Chadha v. Union of India & Ors., [1981]  1  SCR 430; 586 Brij  Bihari  Lal  Aggarwal v. High Court of  A.P.  &  Ors., [1981]  2 SCR 297; Amar Kant Chowdhary v. State of  Bihar  & ors., [1984] 2 SCR 299 and J.D. Srivastava v. State of  M.P. JUDGMENT:     4.1 There is no doubt that whenever an adverse entry  is awarded  to a government servant it must be communicated  to him. The object and purpose underlying the communication  is to afford an opportunity to the employee to improve his work and  conduct  and to make representation  to  the  authority concerned against those entries. If such a representation is made it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation  with a view to determine as to  whether  the contents of the adverse entries are justified or not.  Right to  make representation is a valuable right to a  government employee and if the representation is not considered, it  is bound to affect him in his service career, as in  government service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately  prema- ture  retirement all depend on the scrutiny of  the  service records. [592D-F]     Gurdial  Singh Biji v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979]  3 SCR 518, applied.     4.2  It  would be unjust and contrary to  principles  of natural justice to retire prematurely a government  employee on the basis of adverse entries which are either not  commu- nicated  to  him  or if  communicated  representations  made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

against those entries are not considered and disposed of. In the instant case, the appellant had submitted his  represen- tations  against  adverse entries for the year  1971-72  and 1972-1973  and  admittedly those  representations  were  not considered and disposed of and yet the appropriate authority considered those entries in forming opinion that the  appel- lant’s  premature retirement was in public interest.  There- fore the order of the state Government is not sustainable in law. [593E-G]

&     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7427  of 1983.     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.1981 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 1384 of 1981. P.P. Rao and K.K. Mohan for the Appellant. R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, 587     SINGH,  J. This appeal is directed against the Order  of the  High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the  appel- lant’s  petition  made under Art. 226  of  the  Constitution challenging validity of the Punjab Government’s Order  dated 19.3.80 retiring the appellant prematurely from service.     The  appellant  after having obtained  1st  Class  M.Sc. (Technology)  degree from Banaras Hindu University  in  1950 was  awarded  Gandhi Memorial Scholarship by the  Govt.  for study and training in France for a period of three years. On his  return from abroad he was appointed  as  Superintendent Quality  Marking  Centre  (Scientific  Instruments)  of  the Government of Punjab. In 1963 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Technical). In 1968 he was promoted 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 Services (Premature  Retirement) Rules  1975  (hereinafter  referred to as  the  Rules).  The appellant made a representation against the order of  prema- ture retirement to the Government but the same was rejected, thereupon  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,  which  was dismissed in limine by the High Court on August 5, 1981.     The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Government decision to retire the appellant prematurely  was arbitrary and unreasonable as the appellant’s service record has all along been good and there was no material before the appropriate  authority on the basis of which  the  requisite opinion that the appellant’s premature retirement was neces- sary in public interest, could be formed. He urged that  the appellant had earned consistent good entries for the last  5 years,  but the competent authority relied on  some  adverse entries  of  remote past to retire  the  appellant.  Learned counsel   further  urged  that  appellant’s   representation against  some of the adverse entries which had been  consid- ered  against  him  was pending and the same  had  not  been considered  and disposed of. Those entries should  not  have been  considered  against the appellant. On the  other  hand learned  counsel  appearing  for the State  urged  that  the appellant’s  work and conduct was not satisfactory  and  the State  Government  having considered the  over  all  service record  of the appellant formed the requisite opinion  bona- fide that the appellant’s premature retirement was necessary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

in  public interest. In support of his contention he  placed the service record before the Court and referred to a number of adverse entries 588 earned  by the appellant during his service career to  which we shall make reference at a later stage.     The  purpose and object of premature or  compulsory  re- tirement  of Government employee is to weed out the  ineffi- cient,  corrupt, dishonest or dead wood from the  Government service.  This fight of the Government is  well  established which  is  generally exercised in accordance  with  relevant service  Rules.  The  scope and ambit of  exercise  of  this absolute power depends on the provisions of Rules and it  is always subject to Constitutional limitations. In the instant case  the appellant was prematurally retired in exercise  of power  under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services  (Premature retirement)  Rules 1975, it would therefore be necessary  to have a look at these provisions. Rule 3 reads as under:               "3. Premature retirement:               (1)(a)  The appropriate authority shall if  it               is of the opinion that it is in public  inter-               est  to  do so, have the  absolute  right,  by               giving an employee prior notice in writing, to               retire  that employee on the date on which  he               completes  twenty-five  years  of   qualifying               service  or attains fifty years of age  or  on               any  date  thereafter to be specified  in  the               notice.               (b)  The  period of such notice shall  not  be               less than three months.                           Provided that where at least three               month’s  notice is not given or notice  for  a               period  less than three months is  given,  the               employee  shall  be entitled to  claim  a  sum               equivalent to the amount of his pay and allow-               ances, at the same rate at which he was  draw-               ing  them immediately before the date  of  re-               tirement, for a period of three months or,  as               the case may be, for the period by which  such               notice falls short of three months.               (2)  Any Govt. employee may, after  giving  at               least three month’s previous notice in writing               to  the  appropriate  authority  retire   from               service  on  the date on  which  he  completes               twenty  five  years of qualifying  service  or               attains  fifty  years of age or  on  any  date               thereafter to be specified in the notice.               589                           Provided  that no  employee  under               suspension  shall retire from  service  except               with the specific approval of the  appropriate               authority."     The above rule invests absolute right in the appropriate authority  to retire an employee prematurely on his  comple- tion  of 25 years of qualifying service or 50 years of  age. The  appropriate  authority as defined by rule 2  means  the authority  which has the power to make substantive  appoint- ment to the post or service from which the Govt. employee is required  to retire. Before a Govt. employee is  retired  in exercise  of power under this rule it is necessary that  the Govt.  servant  must have completed 25 years  of  qualifying service or he must have attained 50 years of age and further he  must be given three month’s notice in writing. The  rule does not lay down any criteria, guidelines for the  exercise of power, although public interest is specified in the rule,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

which means power has to be exercised in the public interest only. The public interest in relation to public  administra- tion  envisages retention of honest and efficient  employees in  service  and dispensing the services of  those  who  are inefficient,  dead-wood or corrupt and dishonest.  Therefore the  rule contemplates premature retirement of  the  ineffi- cient, corrupt or dead-wood which would subserve the  public interest.     Since the rule does not contain any further  guidelines, the State Government issued a Government Order on  September 26, 1975 laying down the guidelines and the procedure neces- sary  to be followed in exercising powers under rule  3  for premature  retirement  of a Government employee.  The  order stated  that  the appropriate authority should  utilise  the power under rule 3 in a judicious manner to retire a Govern- ment employee on formulating its opinion by scrutiny of  the confidential  reports  of the employee and  by  taking  into consideration  any other substantial material, it  may  have before it. The order further stated that it was not feasible to  lay down any absolute terms as to how many  adverse  en- tries about inefficiency or lack of integrity would  justify the premature retirement but it laid stress that the service record  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 the service record of  the employee  concerned  such  as crossing  of  efficiency  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 con- 590 cerned was lacking in integrity irrespective of the  assess- ment of ability and efficiency in work. It further  provides that  the appropriate authority should review the  cases  of employees on their completing 25 years of qualifying service or  their attaining 50 years of age. The  Government  issued another  order  on August 4, 1978 pointing  out  that  while exercising power under rule 3 the service of an employee  as a whole would determine the merit of each case but if  there was  a single entry describing the employee concerned  as  a person of doubtful integrity, that would justify the  prema- ture retirement under the rules. The executive  instructions issued as contained in these two Govt. orders provide suffi- cient  guidance  for  the exercise of power  under  rule  3. According  to  these instructions the service record  of  an employee  has  necessarily  to be  considered  while  taking decision for the premature retirement of an employee and  if there  was a single entry casting doubt on the integrity  of an  employee, the premature retirement of such  an  employee would  be in public interest. In the absence of any  details by which the question of public interest could be determined in the rules it was open to the State Govt. to issue  execu- tive  instructions for the guidance of the  appropriate  au- thority  to exercise the power of premature  retirement  and the  instructions  so issued as contained in  the  aforesaid Govt. orders have binding character.     In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Punjab it is asserted that the appellant during his  service with the industries department earned adverse remarks in the annual confidential reports on his work and conduct for  the years 1960-61, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1969-70, 1970-71,  1971-72, 1972-73 and 1975-76 which indicate that the overall  service record  of the appellant was bad and his integrity was  fre-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

quently  challenged. It was been further stated  that  these entries were taken into consideration in retiring the appel- lant.  No other material was considered against  the  appel- lant.  According to the respondents the appellant’s  service record as a whole was taken into consideration and thereupon it was found that he had earned a number of adverse  entries which indicated his inefficiency and for that reason it  was considered  necessary  to retire him prematurely  in  public interest. We have been taken through the adverse entries  by the learned counsel appearing for the State as he placed the service  record before us. On a perusal of the same we  find that  the  respondents took into consideration some  of  the adverse  entries which related to remote past prior  to  the promotion  of  the appellant to the post of  Joint  Director (Industries). It is now settled that adverse entries if any, awarded  to an employee lose their significance on or  after his promotion to a higher post. The adverse entries  awarded to the appellant prior to 1968 could not be taken into 591 consideration  and  therefore the adverse  entries  for  the years  1960-61,  1963-64 and 1964-65 could  not  legally  be taken into consideration in forming the requisite opinion to retire  the  appellant prematurely from service. It  is  now well  settled that while considering the question of  prema- ture  retirement  it  may be desirable to  make  an  overall assessment  of  the Government servant’s record,  but  while doing  that, more value should be attached to the  confiden- tial  reports pertaining to the years immediately  preceding such  consideration. It is possible that a new entrant to  a service  may have committed mistakes and for that reason  he may  have  earned adverse entries and if  those  entries  of early  years  of service are taken  into  consideration  for prematurely  retiring a Government employee then perhaps  no employee  would  be safe even though he may  have  brilliant record of service in later years. This aspect was emphasised by this Court in a number of cases namely, Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 SCR 430; Briij Bihari Lal Agarwal v. High Court of M.P. & Ors., [1981] 2 SCR 297; Amar Kant  Choudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1984] 2  SCR  299 and  J.D. Srivastava v. State of M.P. & Ors., [1984]  2  SCR 466. This Court has consistently taken the view that old and stale entries should not be taken into account while consid- ering  the  question of premature  retirement  instead;  the entries  of recent past of five to ten years should be  con- sidered in forming the requisite opinion to retire a Govern- ment  employee in public interest. It would be  unreasonable and unjust to consider adverse entries of remote past and to ignore the good entries of recent past. We are therefore  of the  opinion  that if entries for a period of more  than  10 years  past  are taken into account it would be  an  act  of digging  out  past  to get some material to  make  an  order against  the employee. In view of this we would confine  our scrutiny  to the appellant’s record of service for the  last 10 years prior to the date on which he prematurely retired.     We would now examine the appellant’s service record  for the last 10 years. On a perusal of the same we find that the appellant  was awarded adverse remarks for the year  1971-72 and 1972-73 and for the rest of the years he was not awarded any adverse remarks. On the other hand for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 the reporting officer rated him as a ’very good’ officer although the reviewing officer treated him as  ’ave- rage’.  In  1976-77  the reporting officer rated  him  as  a ’good’  officer while the reviewing officer rated him as  an ’average’.  For  the year 1977-78, 1978-79 and  1979-80  the reviewing  officer  assessed his work  and  conduct  ’good’.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

During  the  last 5 years of his service the  appellant  had earned good entries which are commendable in nature.  Except the two entries awarded to him for the years 1971-72,  1972- 73 592 the  appellant has not earned any adverse  entry  reflecting upon his work and conduct. It is significant to note that in none  of those entries his integrity was doubted. So far  as the  adverse  entries for the year 1971-72 and  1972-73  are concerned the appellant has asserted that even though he had filed  representations in accordance with the rules  against those  entries, his representations had not been  considered or  disposed  of, but the appropriate  authority  considered those entries against him. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf  of the State it is conceded that the  appellant  had filed representations against the aforesaid two entries, but the  two  representations could not be disposed  of  as  the representations  were not traceable on the Government  file. The fact however remains that the appellant had filed repre- sentations  against the aforesaid. adverse entries  and  the receipt of the representations is admitted by the Govt.  but those representations were kept pending.     The  question which fails for consideration  is  whether the aforesaid two entries could be taken into  consideration in  forming the requisite opinion to retire prematurely  the appellant  from service. There is no doubt that whenever  an adverse entry is awarded to a Government servant it must  be communicated  to him. The object and purpose underlying  the communication is to afford an opportunity to the employee to improve  his work and conduct and to make representation  to the  authority  concerned against those entries. If  such  a representation  is made it is imperative that the  authority should consider the representation with a view to  determine as to whether the contents of the adverse entries are justi- fied or not. Making of a representation is a valuable  right to a Govt. employee and if the representation is not consid- ered, it is found to affect him in his service career, as in Govt.  service grant of increment, promotion and  ultimately premature  retirement  all  depend on the  scrutiny  of  the service records. In Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab  & Ors.,  [1979]  3 SCR 518 the appellant  therein  was  denied promotion  on  account of certain  adverse  entries  against which  he had made representation to the Govt. but for  some reason  or  the  other those representations  could  not  be considered or disposed of. In view of those adverse  entries he was not selected for promotion. This Court while  consid- ering the effect of non-consideration of the  representation observed:               "      The principal is well settled  that  in               accordance with the rules of natural  justice,               an  adverse  report  in  a  confidential  roll               cannot  be  acted  upon  to  deny  promotional               opportunities unless it is communicated to the               person concerned               593               so  that he has an opportunity to improve  his               work  and  conduct or to explain  the  circum-               stances leading to the report. Such an  oppor-               tunity is not an empty formality, its  object,               partially,  being to enable the  superior  au-               thorities to decide on a consideration of  the               explanation  offered by the person  concerned,               whether  the  adverse  report  is   justified.               Unfortunately, for some reason or another, not               arising  out of any fault on the part  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             appellant,  though  the  adverse  report   was               communicated  to him, the Government  has  not               been  able  to consider  his  explanation  and               decide whether the report was justified."     After the aforesaid observation this Court directed  the State  Govt. to consider and dispose of  the  representation made by the appellant and thereafter the Selection Committee was  directed  to  consider his case afresh.  In  Amar  Kant Choudhary  v. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) the Court  again emphasized that adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated  to  the  person concerned so that  he  has  an opportunity  to improve his work and conduct or  to  explain the  circumstances leading to the report. Unless the  repre- sentation  against the adverse entry is considered and  dis- posed  of it is not just and fair to act upon those  adverse entries. These decisions lay down the principle that  unless an  adverse  report is communicated and  representation,  if any, made by the employee is considered, it cannot be  acted upon to deny promotion. We are of the opinion that the  same consideration must apply to a case where the advese  entries are  taken into account in retiring an employee  prematurely from service. It would be unjust and unfair and contrary  to principles of natural justice to retire prematurely a  Govt. employee  on the basis of adverse entries which  are  either not  communicated to him or if  communicated  representation made  against those entries are not considered and  disposed of.  The appellant had submitted his representation  against adverse entries for the year 1971-72, and 1972-73 and admit- tedly those representations were not considered and disposed _of  and  yet the appropriate authorities  considered  those entries  in forming opinion that the  appellant’s  premature retirement was in the public interest. We are, therefore, of the  opinion  that for this reason the order  of  the  State Govt. is not sustainable in law.     Though  the entire service record of an employee may  be considered  while considering the question of his  premature retirement,  but if the service record of the last 10  years of his service do not 594 indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct it would  be unjust  and  unreasonable to retire him prematurely  on  the basis of entries which may have been awarded to him prior to that period. In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India &  Ors., (supra)  this  Court held that if an officer had  earned  no adverse  entries atleast for five years  immediately  before the  compulsory  retirement, he cannot be cashiered  on  the score that long years ago his performance had been poor.  It appears  that  the State of Punjab realised  that  premature retirement  of  an employee on the basis of  entire  service record which may include stale entry, would be  unreasonable and it therefore issued Govt. order on June 22, 1981 direct- ing that under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature  Retire- ment) Rules 1975 it would not be desirable to scrutinize the entire  service record of an employee and premature  retire- ment  should not be ordered if during the last 5  years  the work and conduct of the employee have been good. This direc- tion was no doubt issued after the appellant was prematurely retired  in March 1980 but nonetheless it is  apparent  that the  Govt.  had changed its policy in  accordance  with  the decisions  of this Court and it had taken a decision not  to retire  a Govt. servant if his service record for  the  last five  years did not contain any adverse remarks. The  appel- lant had not earned any adverse remarks during the last five years of service; on the other hand he had earned ’good’ and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

’very  good’  entries during those years. In this  view  the Government’s decision to retire the appellant prematurely in exercise  of  the power under rule 3 is not  sustainable  in law.     We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order  of the  High Court, ,quash the Govt. order dated 19.3.1980  and direct  that  the  appellant shall be treated  as  being  in service without break. He is entitled to his salary,  allow- ances  and such other benefits as may be admissible  to  him under the rules. The respondents shall pay the costs of this appeal to the appellant. S.R.                                                  Appeal allowed. 595