DUDHNATH Vs. STATE OF C.G. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The present appeal arises from order dated 15.7.2014 dismissing WP(S) No. 4935/2005 declining to interfere with order of compulsory retirement dated 28.4.2001 of the appellant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed as Constable in the 11th Battalion, Special Armed Force, Bhilai on 10.12.82. On the date of the impugned order, he had completed only 18 1/2 years of service. Under Rule 42 of MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh, the qualifying service for the respondents to compulsorily retire him in public interest was 25 years after giving three months notice or salary in lieu thereof. The impugned order was therefore illegal on the face of it.

(3.) It was next submitted that a bare reading of the impugned order makes it apparent that it has been passed as a punishment on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence for 273 days from 30.7.2000 to 28.4.2001. Under Rule 10(vii) of the MP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called 'CCA Rules') adopted by State of Chhattisgarh compulsory retirement was a major penalty. Holding of a departmental proceedings was therefore mandatory and in absence of which the impugned order stands vitiated. Even under Rule 228 of the MP Police Regulation, adopted by State of Chhattisgarh, holding of departmental enquiry for compulsory retirement by way of punishment was mandatory.