JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was compulsorily retired from service by the order dated 11-4-1994. He assailed the said order of his compulsory retirement by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge rejecting the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant upheld the same. The appellant pursued the matter further by filing a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court after considering the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties and keeping in view the principles stated in the case of Baikunth Nath Das and another vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another (1992) 2 SCC 299), dismissed the writ appeal affirming the order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence the appellant is before us in this appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the two contentions, namely, the order of compulsory retirement was punitive and stigmatic and that the said order was arbitrary and unreasonable, were urged before the Division Bench of the High Court, he does not press the first contention but he emphatically argued that the order of compulsory retirement is unsustainable, because the said order was based only on the one man Committee report of K. S. Rao, of which the appellant was not at all made aware; if the authorities had considered the entire material touching the service record of the appellant, reasonable view would have been different. In support of his submissions he cited few decisions.

(3.) In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned judgment. In particular, the learned counsel drew out attention to para 9 of the impugned judgment to contend that the entire service record of the appellant was perused by the competent authority as well as by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment.