GULERI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL C I S F

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P1 is under challenge. By Ext. P1, the petitioner a Deputy Commandant in Central Industrial Security Force (C. I. S. F.) has been compulsorily retired from service invoking the power conferred on Government under 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. Of course, the said rule confers power on Government on subjective satisfaction to dispense with the services of any Government Servant in public interest. It is exercising that power, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 6th May 1997 when he attained the age of 55 years. The order reads as follows:

(2.) It is contended that what is public interest is not spelt out in Ext. P1. Even if the Government had the privilege of being specifically satisfied about the fact under S.56(j), the service history of the officer concerned has to be looked into. Without such materials, any order will per se be arbitrary. No such materials are disclosed, even though two adverse remarks said to be effected during the year 1984-85 and 1992-93 have been taken as a reason for compulsory retirement. The petitioner submits that there were subsequent promotions effected on 10th September 1985 and in November, 1992 to higher cadres which itself will erase the adversities that may arise out of such adverse entries. The petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam and Anr., 2003 (4) SCC 59 . The Supreme Court in the said case has made it clear that:

(3.) It is an admitted case before me that the petitioner has been promoted as Assistant Commandant on 10th September 1985. Assistant Commandant is a selection post. There was a further promotion in November, 1992 as Deputy Commandant which also is a selection post. Added to this is Ext. P3 issued by his superior recommending his case for Award of Police Medal, detailing the meritorious services rendered by the petitioner. The ultimate paragraph of Ext. P3 reads as follows: