LAKHAN LAL Vs. INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondent, Indian Roads Congress not to take any action in respect of its Order dated 30th December, 1988 by which it was decided to retire the petitioner upon attaining the age of 55 years, with effect from 3rd April, 1989 in public interest, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules and Memorandum dated 24th February, 1989 issued by the Representation Committee rejecting the representation of the petitioner holding that it would not be in public interest to continue the petitioner in service. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a Section Officer with the respondent since the year 1954 and there was no complaint regarding his performance, and that for the first time in September 1987. the petitioner received two Memos from the respondent, dated 14th September and 24th September, 1987 regarding his unsatisfactory performance. On 21st November, 1988, the petitioner received an Office Memorandum from the respondent by which shortcomings in his character roll for the periods ending December 1984. December 1985 and December 1987' were conveyed to him and he was advised to be more careful in timely disposal as well as handling of office work. The aforesaid Office Memorandum was followed by the impugned order dated 30th December, 1988, compulsorily retiring the petitioner upon attaining the age of 55 years with effect from 3rd April, 1989.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that the adverse entries made against the petitioner as communicated to him in the Office Memorandum dated 21st November, 1988 could not be taken into consideration for passing the impugned order as the said entries were never notified to the petitioner prior to the order year 1988. Secondly, it was submitted that no material was put forth either before the Review Committee or the Representation Committee for issuing the impugned order of compulsorily retiring the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that none of the observations made in the Office Memorandum dated 21st November, 1988 or impugned order dated 30th December, 1988 showed that the petitioner was proposed to be compulsorily retired in public interest.

(3.) (iv) Registrar, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur v. Kumari Rajabai Gorkar and Anr. : 1995 Supp (3) SCC 202.