RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 17.08.1999 (Annexure P/2) whereunder the petitioner was retired compulsorily in public interest, with payment of three month's salary in lieu of three month's notice under the provisions of Rule 42(1)(b) of the, then, M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner joined the post of Lower Division Clerk (Assistant Grade III) by order dated 25.11.1967 in the establishment of District Court, Raipur. It is projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no adverse entry or remark against the petitioner, however, all of a sudden, in view of some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the First Additional District Judge, adverse remarks was made in the Annual Confidential Report (for short 'the ACR') dated 04.08.1998. Itis further submitted that for alleged mistake committed by the petitioner, the petitioner had tendered apology. Shri Pali further submits that the order of compulsory retirement which is impugned herein was passed not having regard to the over all service record of the petitioner as required under Rule 42 of the Rules, but only on the basis three entries i.e. for the year 1997, 1998 and 1999. In the entire service career of the petitioner for about 32 years, before the impugned order was passed, there was not a single adverse remark except the aforestated, for which warning or advice was given. Thus, the entire exercise leading to passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner has made vague, unspecific and wild allegations against the responsible judicial officers. There are number of adverse remarks in the service record of the petitioner and the Committee has considered the entire service record of the petitioner before taking the decision. The petitioner was given a strict warning in the enquiry by memo dated 16.08.1993 (Annexure R/1). There were as many as six adverse remarks recorded in his service record pertaining to the year 1976, 1981, 1987, 1997, 1998 and 1999 (Annexure R/2 to R/7). The petitioner was found indisciplined and a troublesome employee as evident in the ACRs and his performance was found substandard and there was doubt about his integrity. Adverse remarks recorded in the year 1997 was duly communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 21.01.1998 (Annexure R/8), remarks for the year ending 31 st March, 1998 was also communicated by memo dated 10.08.1998 (Annexure R/5) and further adverse remarks for the year ending 31 st March, 1999 was communicated to the petitioner on 18.06.1999 (Annexure R/16). The decision of compulsory retirement is neither arbitrary nor illegal or tainted by any mala fides.