S.R. UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (For short "the Rules of 1976"), having completed 25 years of service and at the age of 56 years vide impugned order dated 16-01-1998. It is this order which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur and after abolition of the Tribunal, this case was transferred to this Court.

(2.) The petitioner made an entry into the government service initially as a Assistant Clerk in the Government College of Engineering and Technology, Raipur in the year 1960. Later on, the petitioner faced direct selection examination successfully and vide order dated 21-02-1967, he was appointed as Marketing Inspector. The petitioner continued on this post for a very long time, for almost 25 years in the same capacity. Vide order dated 29-04-1993, he was confirmed on the post of Circle Organizer, which is equivalent to the post of Marketing Inspector. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was rewarded with promotion vide order dated 25-01-1994, when he was promoted as Block Education Officer in the Tribal Department. Vide order dated 13-11-1996, charge sheet was issued against the petitioner which was duly replied by the petitioner also. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 20-05-1997 proposing imposition of minor penalty of withholding five increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner replied this also but no orders were passed in the departmental enquiry. However, the impugned order came to be passed, by which, the petitioner was compulsorily retired.

(3.) Assailing correctness and validity of the order of compulsory retirement, learned counsel for petitioner argued in extenso and submitted that the impugned order is not in bona fide exercise of power of compulsory retirement under Rule 42 of the Rules of 1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire service records of the petitioner were not examined by the respondent authorities. The purpose of compulsory retirement is to weed out the deadwood but nothing is indicated from the service records of the petitioner to reach to such a conclusion. It is further argued that the petitioner had been rewarded with promotion in the year 1994 which renders all adverse entries against him, prior to that order of promotion, inconsequential. After his promotion, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied but no penalty was imposed on the petitioner, which only means that the there was not enough material found in the departmental enquiry to justify imposition of any penalty . However, after some time, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service under the cloak of Rule 42 of the Rules of 1976, object of which, is not to punish. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that from the reading of the minutes of meeting, in which, decision was taken to compulsory retire the petitioner, records of the performance of recent past have not been duly adverted to. Finding regarding adverse entries have been recorded contrary to records, promotion granted in the year 1994 has not been kept in consideration and emphasis has been given to performance of remote past by ignoring records of the recent past. Therefore, the decision to compulsory retire the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. Moreover, it is contended, only inference which could be drawn is that the authority had ulterior motive to punish the petitioner without there being any material found against him in the departmental enquiry. Hence, the impugned order is illegal. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and Another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, (2009) 15 SCC 221.