Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.and Ors. v. Hari Klshan Verma

Judgment

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4784 of2007 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 12902 of 2004 JayshreeAnand, Kuldip Singh for the Appellants. A. V. Patil, S. Punam Singh, Rekha Palli for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J.

1The singular question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. [erstwhile, the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB)], the first appellant herein, compulsorily retiring the respondent on attaining the age of 55 years is in accordance with Punjab State Electricity Board Service (Premature Retirement) Regulation 1982 (for short "the Regulation") is sustainable in law or is it vulnerable being ex facie stigmatic. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. v. HARi KISHAN 559

2The factual score as depicted is that the respondent A joined the services of the PSEB as a lineman on 6.2.1969. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 4.12.1973 and while holding the post of Junior Engineer in a disciplinary proceeding he was censured on 29.2.1988. In the year 1992 another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and B he was visited with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect under Regulation 5(4) of Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulation, 1971. He was also visited with stoppage of two C increments with cumulative effect on 5.8.1993 in another disciplinary proceeding.

3As the factual matrix would unroll the respondent attained the age of 55 years on 19.4.2003, his date of birth 0 being 20.04.1948. A High Empowered Integrity Committee (HEIC) was set up for screening the case of respondent for his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years. As per the regulations his case was considered by HEIC on 17.02.2004 and the committee after taking note of entire service record, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the punishment imposed, his inefficiency in service and the confidential reports from 1992-2003, recommended his case for premature retirement and accordingly an order dated 19.02.2004 was passed by the Chief Engineer.

4Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.12902/2004 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh assailing the same on the fundamental ground that the order is punitive and G stigmatic in character as it entails penal consequences and, hence, it was legally non-substantiable. The High Court reproduced the order of compulsory retirement, placed reliance on the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 3048 of 2000 titled 1 (2002) 1 o sec 590 A R.K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Another1 and after quoting a passage from the said order opined that the case of the respondent is covered by the order passed by this Court, eventually treated the order to be stigmatic and quashed it.

5We have heard Ms. JayshreeAnand, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that HEIC had perused all relevant records, mentioned the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed on the officials and appreciating the entire service record had recommended for passing of an order of compulsory retirement and there is nothing to suggest that the 0 order is punitive or stigmatic and the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in R.K. Panjetha's case and set aside the order of compulsory retirement which really cannot withstand scrutiny. It is her further submission that when such an order is passed in accordance with regulations it is purely a simple compulsory retirement on the basis of assessment after attaining the requisite age by an employee and in the absence of anything stated in the order, the High Court could not have treated the same as stained.

6Ms. Palli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in her turn, would contend that when the order expressly uses certain kind of language from which it becomes clear that it is stigmatic and hence, it loses the flavour of compulsory retirement which is passed under the regulations and, therefore, the High Court is justified in treating the same as punitive·. It is also argued that despite the imposition of punishment he had been promoted to the post.of Additional Assistant Engineer on 4.11.1999 and hence, his post prior to the said date should be regarded to have been washed off. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. v. HARi KISHAN 561 Additionally, it is canvassed by her, as one of the punishments A has been taken into consideration wherein the respondent has been exonerated and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement is otherwise flawed or faulted.

7To appreciate the contending proponements, it is necessary to reproduce the order of compulsory retirement passed by the PSEB. It reads as follows:- "PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Office of Chief Engineer (South) Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala Office Order No. 166 Dated 19.02.2004 Whereas Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 presently posted under Nabha Division Punjab State Electricity Board Nabha under Patiala has attained the age of 55 years on 19.04.2003 because his date of birth is 20.04.1948. Whereas as per Punjab State Electricity Board service premature regulation the case Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 was considered in the meeting held on 17.02.2004 by the HEIC which has been set up for screening the cases of Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 for retention's in service beyond the age of 55 years. The committee took note of disciplinary cases personal records and his reputation. The reports of disciplinary cases indicates the Sh.

Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 was served with the sheet/SCN, where in his three annual increments with future effect vide office order no. 27 dated 11.01.1983 two AGI without future effect vide office order no. 151 dated 09.03.1992, two AGI without future effect vide office order no. 697 dated 05.08.1993, two AG I without future effect ' vide office order no. 858 dated 01.10.1999 two times censured vide office order no. 154 dated 29.02.1988, office order no. 566 dated 08.08.2003. TheACR as well as disciplinary cases clearly shows that Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 has a poor record as well as poor performances and inefficient and not fit for retention in the service in Punjab State Electricity Board. HEIC recommended that the official Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 might be premature retired. The Chairman ofHEIC in its meeting held on 17.02.2004 approved the recommendations.

The matter was further considered by the competent authority as per instruction circulated by the Punjab State Electricity Board, took the note of recommendation of HEIC, service record general reputation as well as inefficiency of the official Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 and decided to prematurely retire Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 from the Punjab State Electricity Board service w.e.f 19.02.2004 without prejudice to the outcome of the pending disciplinary cases against him. The necessity for the personal hearing was not felt necessary because of his record available was sufficient for this decision. And as such Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 is required to be prematurely retired from the service from the Punjab State Electricity Board w.e.f. 19.02.2004 as per Punjab State Electricity Board PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. v. HARi KISHAN 563. service (Premature) regulation to be read with amendments issued from time to time.

And whereas it is not feasible in the public interest to give three month notice in terms of regulations Punjab State Electricity Board service (Premature retirement) regulation 1982 and it has been decided by the competent authority to pay three months pay and allowances in advance in lieu of notice period. Accordingly a cheque no. 499574 dated 19.02.2004 amounting to Rs. 62288.00 in favour of office Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 is hereby sent to official in lieu of pay and allowances of three months notice period. Now therefore, the competent authority in . exercise of powers to order that Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 is hereby prematurely retired from the service of board w.e.f. 19.02.2004 in terms of Punjab State Electricity Board (premature retirement) regulation to be read with amendments issued from time to time without prejudice to the outcome of pending disciplinary cases. Chief Engineer (South) Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala, Endst no.

2025 Dated 19.02.2004 A copy of the above is forwarded to senior Xen Nabha Div Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala to relieve Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 w.e.f. 19.02.2004. A cheque no. 499574 dated 19.02.2004 amounting to Rs.62283.00 in lieu of pay and allowances forthree months notice period and office order no. 166 dated 19.02.2004 be delivered to the official Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 and dated acknowledgement duly signed by him on full-scape paper be sent to this office for record. Chief Engineer (South) Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala, Endst no. 2025 Dated 19.02.2004 A copy of the above is forwarded to Sh. Hari Krishan Verma JE-1 office of SDO Punjab State Electricity Board Sub Division for information. He should treat him self relieved from service w.e.f. 19.02.2004. Chief Engineer (South) Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala"

8As stated earlier the High Court has placed reliance on R.K. Panjetha's case. We are disposed to think that first we must reproduce the paragraph in which the High Court has stated how the order is stigmatic:- "On careful consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order Annexure P-1 is stigmatic and punitive in nature and therefore, it deserves to be quashed in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in R.K. Panjeta's case (Supra). We are thus, satisfied that case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court."

9Keeping in view what has been stated in the aforesaid paragraph, it becomes imperative to refer to the I r .:PUN'J8~SJ~TE POWER...CQRP.N11,!.TQ; y.;H8Rl~lSH~N c5&5 VERMA [DIPAKMISRA,J.] decision in R.K. Panjetha)s:P<ISealruthe1said.:;c;aseJLWhiJe ,A passing the order of compulsory retirement, PSEB took riote 'Of tfie d isCrpiifiary proceedtr1gs liiitiatecf against the 1a'ppellant 'Uiereiri;rvarrou~ 'puiiisnmenfl 1m'i>os?cr;afici?penclency'1ot 'tfiargeshee1 1arf<fthereafterstafetfthu~DS Z>lJf\ ed! TO OiOO of err.so 1nems1iJs1 '{lozfuqmoo to isb10 eril \(lt]nibmo::m brrn cB lot begT!le GPi:nmittee als0: opted, tl:!aLCIJ<Irge:~s.tie.et~o>zi ed as bo:1Q5/.C9of.2902;dated.&;9::1997,is.Pending.relating2noo '{lo<:! iJ~rllle c pe. rjctd$ wti i!as h. e.

1 re m<I in e,d ~ P !>.te cJ1 :~ s ri gitz .srngi.Executive..Enginee;JOP.):Pivisioo Ba,1Ja.ciurgC\rh.formite1 sdw:sthe.reasoos tl:lat.h_e ,h?s yjolate9. tt!!'l lnstrvctions andv 1u8 § ,lnsrn .i ss_u ~d>2Z ~ 7.1 c'No rks,1tPf <I.Elis)~ <I mo u o ttn g1iJlOJmo2 s ni 1;Rs.;-2Qr28;243.d.~fcmain!en...anpes()fsWoJJ< L<Ibw ti 1eb10 13ahadurgam i;ucn as dismantlemei:it of distribµtiov:e11iti 1ebnu line;1rEt~rectiortof;li11esiJ~l!aggii:ig:ofJ<qnciuctpr:oo to 1s:uoLan~,r~layJng, .of -!'lerviw.:c;a!:>Je.s.t.Wherna§rP!i'l.<1te1::iiriw J) labour was to be engaged only after fully deploying .sgs the departmental labour and in no case the 1sb10 mam1enance was toi5e entrusted tdlne cantractor sl!;hc; faioolif.i Whereas ·ille "Office ff engaged rt11ei~rivate22eq E crit 1o6on1iacfor hmaunilrig t'c>RS':

1606" against 23 Wciri<s-:1 b o 1 s::in s::.-Ql·crefs' f o~bonsfriictloii wcirl<s bytaking-excessiveilnco ncc;u fmeasuremerit th'roughtethiiicalsubordinates;:>narl brm Jnsms1iis1 '(lOciuqmo::i 'to 1sb10 ns gnizzsq nfiriw ems<> eril bebn<:And;fo1md cthat: S.hrL8;K~R.anjettia)s;\l!1fi! to, !?.~1eriT F 1 esrl Jr:allowed extei'isi.09 beY?r:td,tl;le,,age,9f:59¥EiJars,}nsd erH 'icr::d 1 10:.01f 1~~la9tJ ~iilrtifr'ar1~.gm;;?J~£\ci'Br<leFiffsnw~ 'cie~~~t~at' 'it''tia'5'~' ;aifi~ici~liiJilt3\Ir :'F\~;'fCrerJ/S' 1iJ!.1h'~ chargesheet pending against the incumbent and s~BOR8, 1 ffie(e Js. also reference: puttirig)re~p_OIJS[blli!J', P[l; hiCTr fOJrmaking ,9 excess payment .toJhE? private .cqoJr~<:<tors_alJ~ ~?l!!P~!a~ii;ig excess measurement through technical subordinates. The ·ane9aUcirisgraph1ca11Yrevea1vi01au0n'"ofinstructions. There can be no shadow of doubt such an order ha~ ~~f:,Q ~~L~J:W~ ,1;1 (2015} 3 S.C.R. A two-Judge Bench to be stigmatic.

11Coming to the case at hand, as we find from the order it has reflected on the order passed in the past, taken note of the ACRs and opined that the respondent was unfit B and accordingly the order of compulsory retirement came to be issued. In this backdrop the question that has emerged for consideration whether such an order can be treated as stigmatic. It is well settled in law that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It also does not cast a stigma. C But when by any incorporation or some reference or otherwise some stigma is attached to the order of compulsory retirement, it would be treated as an order of punishment, falling in a different compartment altogether losing its features of order D of compulsory retirement under the Rules or Regulations under which he is not allowed to continue after attaining a particular age.

12Prior to dwelling upon the issue whether the order E passed in this case is stigmatic or not, we think it appropriate to deal with the contention whether the past entries prior the conferment of benefit of promotion have lost their significance and hence, the competent authority could not have relied upon the same while passing an order of compulsory retirement. F There is no cavil over the fact thatthe respondent was extended the benefit of promotion to the higher post. The issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that after the promotion the earlier adverse entries totally lost their signification.

13To appreciate the said submission, we think it appropriate to refer to certain authorities in the field.

14In State ofOrissa v. Ram Chandra Das2a three- 2 (1996J s sec 331 PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. v. HARi KISHAN 567 VERMA [DIPAK MISRA, J.) Judge Bench has emphatically held that object behind A compulsory retirement is public interest and, therefore, even if an employee has been subsequently promoted, the previous entries do not melt into insignificance. To quote:- "7 .... Merely because a promotion has been given 13 even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that I selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required I length of service or qualified period of service for pension."

15The aforesaid dictum has been approved and followed in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. PateP· wherein F emphasis has been laid on the factum that entire service record of the government servant is tc; be examined. Same principle has also been followed in another three-Judge Bench decision in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and Others4 I I·'- Slightly recently, a Division Bench in Rajasthan SRTC v. G Babula/ Jangit°, after discussing number of authorities, has held thus:- i 3 (2001) 3 sec 314 4 (201 o) 1 o sec 693 5 (2013) 10 sec 551 (::: ''"'l"I""' .., ("........... """ r:: '568 V1AHsliPRE.ME: col.l,Eii'Ff E~ORTs':J~~ 3,[2o1sj3 'ifc.'R.. [.I, ,J\rk~IM /lA-.IU) /\~1;/i::;V 'A . bnirl" 11'22:'1fic1eariy fbnow5;rtro'm'~tlfe'a6over't11at fihe'?bul, .1i nov'clarlfi'cationgrvenbyat\'vO'.Uuage'Bencfi;judifme'rlt11!1°:i zuoiv ir'l'Badr/natHV':-'SlatEr of-Tamli'Naati5 is"fio(correct18 n:.;

8 and the ·o6seRfationsoftti1sc'ourtirfSta1e cif Putijab"iiln·J rKl\;~Hill~e ,filn~r&it9rm!'& ~tt:£\.!.tt~htii1ce,~~v-~r~e ;,e{1rJ3.~ne9~Jot9nt_h~ .. ~~~!nRt\<;>J1.,Bft~?f~Jry~.)\qf .. s1u 1PJ~.~.9Yr R,~rr JrRL~~~~ rltB Wi:i~~ s~~~ ~r~D~,t 1P:v,RITt.m;iq,a~~1Pn1t~~e\hl~J?,tiq8q~IJ\1:.Yh\ 1e· . 1'2PO~lf!e!i 1.~.y1,Jhr s~X~~~,I~ P,r,Ff0JmJtn~,15rPJ~!~~ . · s~P. 1.~~7~,~J~enit~9W~.~1,t9J~;:,1S~D~~7.~~~gr,Rf r~~~,?J ~ .,~t. ~'TIP..!~Y~~ f,0 .~ ~~7,rl]~~~ &~. f 7~r~m,~iit.s 1 '23~Tfie principle ot"lawwhichisclaiifieOana ·stands . t ciYsta1iiseci' atter 111e 1Jud9ment in 'Pra're 'Mo'han Lai v: state of JhaikhanC!is that afiehne'promotiorl"ot an. employee: the' adverse' 'entries''"piior'tfier'eto \vollid have norelevance'aria"ca'n b"e1trsated'as :wiped c otf· when' ttietcase 10Ffhe 19ove'riiment . ~employee is to' he' consfdereCi for furtfier proriiotian:

1However.''thisc·wa'shed:ott 'theory''\vill'.tiave'no 'application \>Jtlen"the 'case of an einployeEiis'being assessed to determine whether he is fit tci'.be bn' t!~Je\~~~ Nl<~~~'i]Re,1~r".r~qp/re"~ N~ be, giv~n COl')'lpuh;ory retirem_ent.J"~e rat10J'lale,given is that .. ""' n\...,l911~J •-lj>,• \ -.d.ttJt04.~A.J..,.•.l,t\l .-.t ''~''.;;-t·~ ... ,..- t~-' -.J.l~<,\(• '' __ :.,.},v\ rn_ c:i0~Lf!,9T1t::PEh1 ~.f'.,':'~~.~.~.~~Wrnt i~,~~~~.~,,~n;·~~J~f~riG·_.ns I ; serv.1ce.record". there 1s no question of not ta~mg ·.,, s ~~~rlntb"'ccl"~iife~~~ti~n~the'Eiarliei .. 01a· acivers'e ~'Of'' es 3 1 8or ~co RT ~?jfle"old' iierlo~'. We 'mayhasten'icl'~~(l s,~ 2 ~ 1" 1th~twti'l~~s'u~h" 1~~ r'gcl)i-a''ca~ i be : 'a~~n'' into{\-~ .'1 '01 .... v ti):i~\~ .. :,i:j\~1' 1il dJ11~-,u 1!01c1~U t.> ~;..:i10:)~~1 .. ·,,·nD'i..:1 , rl ..consideration, atUie same time tbe seiv1ce record :· - .~s · "'df'i~~·1;nn;~'illate 1 p'asii:l~H~a'Wll1 ~:..'e·iCi'tig 1 ?i!v~'~'"

1 ·ub·~.:..rl··· 1 ,,,un ,s due ere ence and we1ghtage. or examp e, as against some very old adverse entrieswherethe-· -· - .. 1 1998 4 sec 92 He 003 c (taos;)£ cca Xl2 Ot (OtO'.':) l> rec :io2 or (LtC~J a PUNJA~ STATE POWERCQ8f.'l:'J;L "'(D,·,v~ H~RI f<ISHAN 1_56~ !u;;gJrnrnedia!eJpast1r_eco.rd:!stioy{~;9-l<ernp,larY1 !c;ril A :Jmo: performar:iet},· ig(lorjQgsucti .. a rec~rd. ofrec:.:e,11t pash t•n 9 ~o 19Lai;id acti(lg_<;mly 9i;i,tnepa~is .C?f ql9,?d.v~r~E:l E!rl~~es1 , srnii b\eirl (to.retire a, per,sori Wil\ be.a. c2ear,exa!J1pJe ()~arl?itr~!Y it:db exercise of power. However, if old record pertain§\ioi <:G to integrity of a person then that may be sufficient to justify the" order' or prehiat\.rre· retirement of the govemmentservant.~'0'1f;rmo11sq ·,1o;~)Gt2:is2nu !ud Jns1811ib nsed svr;rl ii'1f!:rn 19Jts111 srU ,!nrJ!·3qqc 1 r.16.'

In view. olthe_afo~esajd statemet')t qfJav.i.:tlJere can be no.iota of.doubt that.the .entir.erecor? can .b~ sc;ru_tinised by g the employetto adjudg~ tlJe justi~catio(\ cif. copt\.l)\lall.~ of the employee afteu~aclJing a particu]a.r age_a5,c9nt~fl!P.)?ted in the Regulations.,J.tiis~being ;tt:ie .. P.?!?itio11; c:>Uaw.-~ E!J1a,ve no hesitation\o ~aiding that!IJe su~mls!?i()_n ()f M~ ... B.~~ha, _Palli is 0 sans ~-ubstancer.G 2i ii' 1ud.doi r; 1oi sldr;Jiu211u bnuo! zsw 9 'f7:rW;;w~-XT~'S~~.'Wh16!, 1 \~'t~€C1o~i 1 dli~~ wt1effierthe ·r.....,,11rr"".r·--,··:·..-n order passed by the employer is stigmatic' so as'to'lose the flavourJ of:Co[TlP~lsoly: re!!re_rne11twbif:h,1d.C)E?~lr:19M1,ave the E attributes of punishment. Leamed. pqun,selfo~~h.e,..appeTI<!~t§ would contend that whatever has been stated Jn,Jhe_.PJE.E1.r,J)y no stretch of imagination, can be said that it would constitute 1 e'x'~fac;ersligiriatic?

Pe('contra? learned rc;ourisel!for the 'fesp0naeritwou1d give ·emphasis 'on the words ~reputation•;, i<g'iine'rarieputatiCin~; ~rnefficielit:y~anil ~not fit"liTo tiolster her Fi slibfuiss!on1: ·sh'el'has"cirawhlfin'splratlontfrom"ttie pronouiicemehr in<1aswan tsingh'.f>raiapsingh 'Jadeja v. Rajfcot' Miiiilclpal1Ci:ii'pcifa tio i18Jl1nl the' said >case~Sthe appellan~ while-cin' probation' Ii ad 'got extensions' in' respect of § protiation'and heWas'seriJed~·snov/"'cfause'notice'to explain 'on°file'ane·ged1Tiiscoriduct 'oPrerriair\ing 'absent' from tduty witnout leave:'

After tnecause was' shown by him~the inquif'Y 0 d~ ,,..11: .. .,t .... ,.. .. , nrl• riO .OB \'.\e1orr1s1 s:J Jonnr:.o if .'':Ji1G:rngit2".lo ~.(f.OOJ>_,1~,~~-S 7J,:;;:;\ y,•J ?.GVI (r.;1q:J2) m\\;o}\._n:;C\ JIS\ ni 1Gb10 ,1-;t 1111111111111111111m111111111111111111111111111111JJ1llllllllllill!illlllll A that was initiated against him was not brought to its logical end and his period of probation was extended and after some time, he was discharged. This Court reproduced the order of discharge and after analysing many an aspect, came to hold as follows:- "If the satisfaction of the employer rested on the unsatisfactory performance on the part of the appellant, the matter might have been different, but in that case, from the impugned order it is evident that it was not the unsatisfactory nature and character of his performance only which was taken · into consideration but series of his acts as well, misconduct on his part had also been taken into consideration therefor.

It is one thing to say that he was found unsuitable for a job but it is another thing to say that he was said to have committed some misconduct." Thus, it is limpid that the language employed in the said case is quite different and hence, the decision is distinguishable.

18In the present case, on an anxious and careful · scrutiny of the words used in the order, there can be no quarrel over the fact that previous misconduct and the punishment visited to the respondent have been stated. The decisionmaking process of the Committee has been reflected in the order. It includes the disciplinary proceedings, personal records and the reputation. The reputation here has insegregable nexus, as is seen, with hisACRs and poor performance. The use of words like "inefficiency" and "not flt" cannot be put on a pedestal to confer on them such status so that they convey the meaning of "stigmatic". It cannot be remotely so. On the contrary, the order in R.K. Panjetha (supra) was ex facie stigmatic. It is PUNJAB STATE POVl/ER CORPN. LTD. v. HARi KISHAN 571 worth noting that the learned Single Judge has drawn a parity A solely on the ground that the relationship between an employer and employee is common and the employer PSEB has passed the order on two different occasions in respect of two different employees.

Their status is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy in question. It is the nature B of order which will judge its character, namely, simpliciter or stigmatic. The learned counsel for the respondent has canvassed with immense enthusiasm that one of the punishment has been set aside. Be that as it may, in such a C case it will not make any difference. It cannot be said there is non application of mind. The entire record has been scrutinized, valid punishments have been taken into consideration and the ACRs have been critically scrutinized. The order, according to us, dwells totally in a different realm than the order passed in D R.K. Panjetha's case. The distinction is obvious and same has been obviously missed by the High Court, which makes its order fallacious.

19Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order E passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12902/2004 is set aside. The respondent shall reap all the benefits of compulsory retirement and be paid all his dues, if not paid, within four weeks hence. There shall be no order as to costs. Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.