http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.C. GAMBHIR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/04/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J.      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel for both the sides.      This appeal  is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1996  passed by  the High  Court  of  Punjab  and Haryana in C.W.P.No.6073 of 1996.      The  respondent   was  an  employee  of  Haryana  State Electricity Board.  He  was  retired  from  service  on  3rd February,  1994,   about  9   months  before   the  date  of superannuation. He  challenged that  action of the appellant Board by  filing a  writ petition  in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  It was  the case  of the respondent that he was promoted as  Executive Engineer on 19th February, 1977. when he attained  the age of 50 years his case was considered for retirement/retention  in   service.  It   was   decided   on 30.11.1986 to  continue him  in service.  Again his case was considered when  he attained  the age of 55 years and it was decided on  30.11.1991  to  continue  him  in  service.  His service  record  was  good,  as  on  the  basis  of  overall assessment for  the last  10 years,  the percentage  of good reports was  77%. It  was, therefore,  not  proper  for  the appellant to  retire him  before he  attained the  age of 58 years. He  had challenged  the said  action as arbitrary and illegal.      It was  disputed on  behalf of the appellant before the High Court  that service  record of the respondent was good. It was  pointed out  that by an order dated 4th August, 1993 he was  punished  by  stopping  his  two  increments  and  a recovery of  Rs.14,960.50 was ordered. He was again punished by an  order dated  26th October,  1995 and  Rs.7,197/- were ordered to be recovered.      The High  Court after perusing the Confidential Reports for the  years 1983-84  and onwards  found that they did not justify respondent’s  compulsory retirement  just  9  months before the date of superannuation. The High Court was of the view that  the two punishments, imposed on him, were not for serious acts of misconduct. It took note of the fact that no act of  misconduct was  alleged against  him  after  he  was granted extension  at the  age of  55 years.  It, therefore,

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

allowed the  petition,  set  aside  the  impugned  order  of retirement and  held that  he was  entitled to  continue  in service  with   all  benefits   till  the   actual  date  of superannuation.      The contention of Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, is  that the High Court failed to appreciate that the order,  compulsorily retiring the respondent, was passed by the appellant on the basis of his service record. He also submitted that the appellant did not retire him earlier when his case was taken up for consideration on attaining the age of 50 and 55 years because of pendency of his representation and a  departmental inquiry. Soon after the inquiry was over the impugned  order was  passed. The learned counsel for the respondent, on  the other  hand, raised the same contentions which were raised before the High Court.      The  record   of  the   case  discloses   that  in  the Confidential Report  for the  year 1985-86 an adverse remark was made  that his  integrity was doubtful. At the time when he attained  the age  of 50 years, his case was taken up for consideration for his retention or retirement but it was not thought proper  to retire  him then  as  his  representation against the  adverse remark  was still not decided. His case was again  taken up  for consideration  when he attained the age of  55 years.  At that  time also  the appellant did not think it fit to      We,  therefore,   allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the judgment and  order passed by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. However, in the facts and circumstances  of the case there shall be no order as to costs.