STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UMEDBHAI M PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent, during the relevant time, was an Executive Engineer working in the Narmada Development Department of the State of Gujarat. He was placed under suspension on 22-5-1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was initiated against him alleging that he had committed acts of misuse of power in connection with the purchase of Tarpauline. While the respondent was continuing under suspension, the Govt. of Gujarat passed an order of compulsory retirement by invoking Clause (aa) (i) (1) of Rule 161(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, with effect from 13-2-1987. The respondent was due to retire on superannuation by the end of August, 1988, his date of birth being 17-8-1930. In the order of compulsory retirement, it was stated that the case relating to continuance of the respondent in Govt. service beyond the age of 50 and 55 years was reviewed. The respondent challenged the order of his compulsory retirement before the High Court of Gujarat and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside that order on the ground that the same was punitive in nature and was passed with an oblique purpose to punish the respondent for the charges which were neither investigated nor had the respondent been given reasonable opportunity of hearing. This judgment is challenged before us.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State as also learned counsel for the respondent. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the counsel for the appellant-State that the impugned order is not punitive in nature and that the services of the respondent were dispensed with in public interest. It was argued that the respondent's services were no longer useful and that he had committed acts whereby the State Govt. suffered pecuniary losses. It was also contended that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the State Govt. is not by way of punishment and the respondent is entitled to get all the benefits.