R L BUTAIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of a notice dated 12/5/1967, purporting to have been issued in exercise of the powersconferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules,the petitioner, a permanent Director in the Central Water andPower Commission (Power Wing), New Delhi, was retired fromservice with effect from 15/08/1967. It is this retirementwhich has been challenged by the petitioner on two main grounds,namely, (1) that Fundamental Rule 56(j) was ultra vires clause (2)of Article 311 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofIndia and (2) thar of retirement was malafide and without application of mind to the relevant circumstances of thecase.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as an Electrical Engineer in theSimla Electricity Undertaking until 1949. On 7/09/1949, he was selected by the Union Public Service Commissionfor the Class I (Senior Scale) post of a Project Officer in the Central Electricity Commission and was confirmed and became permanent on 6/10/1950. In 1950-51 the Central ElectricityCommission was redesignated as the Central Water and PowerCommission (Power Wing) and the post of Project Officer wasredesignated as Deputy Director. On 26/03/1955, the petitioner became a Director after having been given two promotionsand he was confirmed as a permanent Director in April, 1963with effect from 5/08/1960. In this petition, the petitionerhas admitted that in respect of his performance in the years 1964and 1965, two adverse entries were made in the Annual Confidential Reports. In the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of therespondents, it was stated that adverse entries were recorded inthe Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the year1955, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1962 also and these were communicated to the petitioner from time to time. Makingf theseadverse entries between 1955 and 1962 has not been denied bythe petitioner in his affidavit in rejoinder. But his contention isthat by reason of his confirmation as permanent Director witheffect from 5/08/1960, "these adverse entries had been foundas false by the Departmental Promotion Committee." I mayonly state that with his affidavit in rejoinder, the Petitioner hasfiled a statement (annexure 'M') quoting these adverse entries.

(3.) It appears that the Departmental Promotion Committee, on 30/05/1965 found the petitioner unfit for promotion and thecomplaint of the petitioner is that the adverse entry made forthe year 1964 was placed before the Departmental PromotionCommittee even before it has been communicated to the petitioner in September, 1965. After receiving the communicationin respect of the adverse entry for the year 1964, the petitionerasked for particulars of specific incidents, by his letter dated 26/10/1965. Particulars were -not supplied and, therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Writ No. 608-D of 1966 in theCircuit Bench of the Punjab High Court on 5/08/1966 forquashing the aforesaid adverse entry. After this writ had beenfiled, the adverse entry for the year 1965 was communicated tothe petitioner and because the petitioner was aggrieved by thisadverse entry also, he filed civil Writ No. 607-D of 1966 in theCircuit Bench of the Punjab High Court on 5/08/1966. Itwas during the pendency of these two writs that the impugnednotice dated 12/5/1967, retiring the petitioner was issuedand Civil Writ No. 526 of 1967 was filed in this Court challengingthe petitioner's retirement. These three writs had come up forhearing before us on 26/10/1967. For the reasons statedin the order of that date Civil Writ No. 525 of 1967 was dismissedas withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition and it wasthen that the present writ petition was filed.