G. S. KHATRI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29th of August, 2006, passed in W.P.(S.)No.1778 of 2005. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant/ petitioner against the order of his compulsory retirement has been dismissed by the writ Court.

(2.) THE appellant was appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon on 6.5.1972 on temporary basis. Thereafter, his services were regularized on the basis of approval granted by Public Service Commission by order dated 23.5.1978. The State government retired the appellant compulsorily in public interest by order dated 2nd January, 1999, which was challenged before the writ Court. Before the writ Court, the appellant raised singular contention that he was neither given any show cause notice nor the enquiry was held before the decision was taken to retire the appellant compulsorily. Except the above ground of violation of principles of natural justice, no other ground was raised. The writ Court, referring to various decisions, including the decision of Bajkuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another, observed that the order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on the ground that the requisite opinion was not formed or the decision was based on co-lateral grounds/ no evidence or the decision was arbitrary. It was held that if the order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government, the High Court cannot sit as an appellate Court to interfere with the decision of the Government/ Employer except in case of no evidence or established malafide or arbitrariness. Since the writ Court did not find all this while examining the matter, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State, opposed the arguments and supported the order passed by the writ Court. He argued that the ground of qualifying service was not raised before the writ Court, therefore, the same cannot be raised in this appeal.