TRILOCHAN SMGH GILL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the notification date July 2, 1979 notifying the voluntary retirement from service by the petitioner, a member of Indian Administrative Service with effect from July 2, 1979 under Rule 16(2A) of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958. The petitioner further seeks the quashing of the appellate order dated October 27, 1980 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969.

(2.) The petitioner was selected in Indian Administrative Service in 1954 on the basis of the competitive examination held in 1953 and was allotted the Assam Cadre of I.A.S. in May, 1954. From May, 1954 to August. 1976, the petitioner continued to work on various assignments as an officer of Assam Cadre and in Assam Province, except for the period 1959 to 1964 when the petitioner was on deputation to the Government of India, New Delhi, In 1971 the Districts of Khasi and Jainta Hills and another District of Garo Hills were separated from the Assam State and were constituted as a new State named Meghalaya and all the officers of All India Services of the erstwhile Assam Cadre were put under the overall mangement and control of the Joint Cadre Authority constituted under the All India Services (Joint Cadre) Rules, 1972. The petitioner was placed all along in its Assam Government constituent till August, 1976. The petitioner was then deputed to work as the Special Secretary to Shri L.P. Singh, the then Governor of Nagaland at Kohima.

(3.) While the petitioner was on deputation to the Government of Nagaland and was posted as Special Secretary to the Governor, certain adverse remarks were recorded in his confidential reports by the Governor for the period August, 1976 to March, 1978. These adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner and he made a representation against it in October, J 978. The representation submitted by the petitioner, in the opinion of the Government of Assam, contained wild insinuations and charges against the Head of the State. The State Government, therefore, contemplated to initiate disciplinary proceedings and also to place the pititioner under suspension pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings.