Holding

The order of premature retirement is invalid because reliance on stale adverse entries and failure to consider the appellant's representations violated natural justice; the order is set aside and the appellant reinstated.

Summary

The appellant, a senior government officer, was prematurely retired under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. He challenged the order, arguing that the State had relied on remote adverse entries in his confidential reports and had ignored his representations against those entries, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court examined the purpose of premature retirement, the executive instructions issued by the State, and the jurisprudence on the relevance of stale adverse entries. It held that only recent service records (generally the last five to ten years) should be considered and that any adverse entry must be communicated and the employee’s representation must be duly considered before retirement can be ordered. Consequently, the Court set aside the government order, reinstated the appellant in service with full salary and benefits, and awarded costs to him.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of considering remote past adverse entries in confidential reports when exercising power under Rule 3 for premature retirement.
Whether an adverse entry that has not been communicated or whose representation has not been considered can be used to justify premature retirement.
The period of service record that should be examined (last five or ten years) for determining public interest in premature retirement.
The validity of the State Government's order dated 19 March 1980 under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 and constitutional principles.
Whether the power under Rule 3 is subject to the rules of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975s. Rule 3

Subjects

premature retirementpublic interestadverse entriesconfidential reportsnatural justicerepresentationservice recordRule 3Punjab Civil Servicesgovernment order

Judgment

BRIJ MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA
v. A
STAIB OF PUNJAB

MARCH 11, 1987

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] B

Premature retirement, purpose and object of-Right of Govern-
ment 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, C
- 1975 Rule 3 read with Executive Instructions dated 6.9.1975, 4.8.1978
and 22.6.1981, Scope of

Under Role 3 of the Pnnjab Civil Services (Premature Retire-
ment) Roles, 1975, the appropriate anthority bas the absolute right to D
retire an employee prematureiy, in public interest after giving three
months notice in writing on bis completion of 25 years of qnalifying
service or 50 years of age. The rnle does not contain any criteria, or
gnidelines for the exercise of power, althongh public interest is specified
mthe rnle, which means power has to be exercised in the public interest
only. The State Government issued a Government Order on September E
26, 1975 laying down the guidelines and the procedure necessary to be
followed in exercising powers under Role 3 for premature retirement of
a Government employee. The order stated that the appropriate author-
ity shonld ntilise the power under Role 3 in a judicious manner to retire
a government employee on formnlating its opinion by scrntiny of the
confidential reports of the employee and by taking into consideration F
any other snbstantial material, it may have before it. The order further
-:f 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 G
the service record of the employee concerned such as crossing of effi-
ciency 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 concerned was lacking in H
583
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A integrity irrespective of the assessment of ability and efficiency in work. -t.
It further provides that the appropriate authority should review the y·
cases of employees on their completing 25 years of qualifying service or
their attaining SO years of age. The government issued another order on
August 4, 1978 pointing out that while exercising power under Rule 3
the senice of an employee as a whole would determine the merit of each
B 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 employee 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 Retire- - °"' "";:
C ment) Rules, 1975 it would not be desirable to scrutinize the entire
senice 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 Quality
D Marking Centre (Scientific Instruments) of the Government of Punjab
in 1953 was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Tt;chnical) 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 Senice (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The appel- ...
E · lant 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.
F
Allowing the appeal, the court,

HELD: 1. The purpose and object of premature or compulsory
retirement of government employee is to weed out the inefficient, cor·
rupt, dishonest of dead wood from the government senice. This right of
G the government is well established which is generally exercised in ac-
cordance with relevant service Rules. The scope and ambit of exercise '>i..·
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 administration envis-
H ages retention of honest and efficient employees in service and dispens-
B.M.S. CHOPRA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 585

ing the services of those who are inefficient, dead wood or corrupt and
dishonest. Therefore, Rule 3 of Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retire- A
ment) 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 B
nnder Rule 3. According to these instructions the service record of an
employee bas 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 snch an employee would be in public interest. In the absence of any
details by which the question of public interest would be determined in
the Rules it was open to the State Government to issue executive C
instruetions for the guidance of the appropriate authority to exerc.ise
the power of premature retirement and the instructions so issued as
contained in the government orders have binding character. [590B-D]

3.1 It is now well setded that adverse entries if any awarded to an D
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 government 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 E
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 un-
reasonable and unjust to consider adverse entries of remote past and to p
ignore the good entries 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 consideration for the reason that G
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)

Ba/dev Raj Chadha v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1SCR430; H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A 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. & Ors., [1984] 2 SCR 466,
followed.

4.1 There is no doubt that whenever an adverse entry is awarded
B to a government servant it must be communicated to him. The object
and pnrpose underlying the communication is to afford an opportunity
to the employee to improve bis work and conduct and to make represen-
tation to the authority concerned against those entries. If such a rep-
resentation 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
c is a valuable right to a government employee and if the representation is
not considered, it is bound to affect him in bis service career, as in
government service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately prema-
ture retirement all depend on the scrutiny oftbe service records. [5920-F]

D Gurdial Singh Biji v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 518,
applied.

4.2 It would be unjust and contrary to principles of m;tural
jnstice to retire prematurely a government employee on the basis of
adverse entries which are either not communicated to him or if com- -"
E municated repmentations made against those entries are not consi-
dered and disposed of. In the instant case, the appellant bad submitted
bis representations 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 appellant's premature retirement was
F in public interest. Therefore the order of the state Government is not
sustainable in law. [593E-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7427
of 1983.

G 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.
H f-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,
B.M.S. CHOPRA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SINGH, J.I 587

SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the Order of the High
A
y Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appellant'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. (Techno- B
logy) 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
4~
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
c
"- 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 refer-
red to as the Rules). The appellant made a representation against the
order of premature retirement to the Government but the same was D
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 August5, 1981.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the E
• 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 necessary in public interest, could be formed. He urged
·.J · that the appellant had earned consistent good entries for the last 5 F
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 considered 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 G
.X 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
bonafide that the appellant's premature retirement was necessary in
public interest. In support of his contention he placed the service
record before the Court and referred to a number of adverse entries H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.CR.

A 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 retirement
of Government employee is to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dis-
honest or dead wood from the Government service. This right of the
B .Government is well established which is generally exercised in accord-
ance 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
c as under:

"3. Premature retirement:
(l)(a) The appropriate authority shall ifit is of the opinion
that it is in public interest to do so, have the absolute right,
D 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

-
E· three months.

Provided that where at least three month's
notice is not given or notice for a period Jess than
three months is given, the employee shall be entitled -• ,
to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay
F and allowances, at the same rate at which he was
drawing them immediately before the date of retire-
ment, for a period of three months or, as the case may
be, for the period by which such notice falls short of
three months.

G (2) Any Govt. employee may, after giving at least
three month's previous notice in writing to the X
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.
H
B.M.S. CHOPRA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SINGH, J.] 589

Provided that no employee under suspension
shall. retire from service except with the specific A
approval of the appropriate authority."

The above rule invests absolute right in the appropriate authority
to retire an employee prematurely on his completion of 25 years of
qualifying service or 50 years of age. The appropriate authority as B
defined by rule 2 means the authority which has the power to make
.>( substantive appointment 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 C
~ 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 public interest in relation to public administration envisages
retention of honest and efficient employees in service and dispensing
the services of those who are inefficient, dead-wood or corrupt and D
dishonest. Therefore the rule contemplates premature retirement of
the inefficient, corrupt or dead-wo.od 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 lay- E
ing down the guidelines and the procedure necessary to be followed in
exercising powers under rule 3 for premature retirement of a Govern-
ment employee. The order stated that the appropriate authority
should utilise the power under rule 3 in a judicious manner to retire a
Government employee on formulating its opinion by scrutiny of the
confidential reports of the employee and by taking into consideration F
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 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 G
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- H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C. R.

A cerned was lacking in integrity irrespective of the assessment of ability
and efficiency in work. It further provides tha~ the appropriate autho- ~
rity should review the cases of employees on their completing 25 years
of qualifying service or their attaining 50 years of age. The Govern-
ment issued another order on August 4, 1978 pointing out that while
exercising power under rule 3 the service of an employee as a whole
B would determine the merit of each case but if there was a single entry
describing the employee concerned as a person of doubtful integrity, y..
that would justify the premature retirement under the rules. The ex-
ecutive instructions issued as contained in these two Govt. orders pro-
vide sufficient guidance for the exercise of power under rule 3. ~ -
According to these instructions the service record of an employee has
C 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 3f
employee would be in public interest. In the absence of any details by
which the question of public interest could be deterrnined in the rules
it was open to the State Govt. to issue executive instructions for the
D guidance of the appropriate authority to exercise the power of prema-
ture 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 de-
E partment 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 frequently
-,
challenged. It was been further stated that these entries were taken
into consideration in retiring the appellant. No other material was
F considered against the appellant. 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
G 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 set-
tled that adverse entries if any, awarded to an employee lose their
significance on or after his promotion to a higher post. The adverse
H entries awarded to the appellant prior to 1968 could not be taken into
B.M.S. CHOPRA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [SINGH, J.] 591

consideration and therefore the adverse entries for the years 1960-61,
y A
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
premature retirement it may be desirable to make an overall assess-
ment of the Government servant's record, but while doing that, more
value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the B
)( 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
4 /,.... " 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 numlfor of cases namely, c
·"it Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 SCR 430; Brij
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 D
taken into account while considering the question of premature retire-
ment instead; the entries of recent past of five to ten years should be
considered in forming the requisite opinion to retire a Government
~ 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 E
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
-4.' which he prematurely retired.
F
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 G
_).(_ treated him as 'average'. 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'. 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 H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 dis-
posed of as the representations were not traceable on the Government
file. The fact however remains that the appellant had filed representa-
c tions against the. aforesaid adverse entries and the receipt of the re-
presentations is admitted by the Govt. but those representations were
kept pending.

The question which falls for consideration is whether the
aforesaid two entries could be taken into consideration in forming the
D 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 represen-
tation to the authority concerned against those entries. If such a re-
E presentation 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. Making of a representation
is a valuable right to a Govt. employee and if the representation is not
considered, it is found to affect him in his service career, as in Govt.
service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately premature re-
F tirement 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
G promotion. This Court while considering the effect of non-consi-
deration of the representation observed:

" The principal is well settled that in accordance with
the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confiden-
tial roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional oppor-
H tunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned
B.M.S. CHOPRA v. STAIB OF PUNJAB (SINGH, J.l 593

so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and
conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the re- A
port. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its
object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to
decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the
person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified.
Unfortunately, for some rP.ason or another, not arising out B
of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse
)f
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 appel- c
lant 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 confiden-
tial roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities un-
less it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an D
opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumst-
ances leading to the report. Unless the representation against the
adverse entry is considered and disposed 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 representaion, if

- any, made by the employee is considered, it cannot be acted upon to E
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 prema-
turely a Govt. employee on the basis of adverse entries which are
either not communicated to him or if communicated representation F
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 admittedly those representations
were not considered and disposed of and yet the appropriate autho-
rities considered those entries in forming opinion that the appellant's
premature retirement was in the public interest. We are, therefore, of G
.><. 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 con-
sidered while considering the question of his premature retirement,
but if the service record of the last 10 years of his service do not H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct it would be unjust and
A ~
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
B 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
directing that under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) ~~ ~
~

Rules 1975 it would not be desirable to scrutinize the entire service
c record of an employee and premature retirement should not be
ordered if during the last 5 years the work and conduct of the emp-
loyee have been good. This direction 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 accordane with the '
decisions of this Court and it had taken ii decision not to retire a Govt.
D servant if his service record for the last five years did not contain any
adverse remarkS. The appellant had not earned any adverse remarks
during the last five years of service; on the other hand he had earned
'good' and 'very good' entries durig 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.
E
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order ot 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, allowances and such other benefits as may be
admissible to him under the rules. The respondents sh~it pay the costs __,
F of this appeal to the appellant.

S.R. Appeal allowed.