UMEDBHAI M PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner who was employed as an Executive Engineer in the services of the State of Gujarat, is challenging by this petition the order dated 13-2-1987 (Annexure-B) retiring him compulsorily in public interest under Rule 161 (1) (aa) (i) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959; by which, admittedly the service conditions of the petitioner were regulated.

(2.) At the time when the petitioner was compulsorily retired from services, he was under suspension by order dated 22-5-1986 (Annexure-A). In the order of suspension it has been mentioned that, the petitioner was suspended for a contemplated inquiry as he has committed misconduct of misuse of powers in connection with purchase of tarpaulin and causing consequent financial loss to the Government. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri. J.R. Nanavati appearing for the petitioner assails the order of compulsory retirement, and contends that, from the reply affidavit submitted by the State Government it is clear that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by way of punishment. It is not passed to serve any public interest or on the basis of poor record of performance of the petitioner. The compulsory retirement order is not based on any adverse confidential reports of the petitioner. It is contended that, the action of compulsory retirement in the background of the fact that the petitioner was under suspension on specific charges of misconduct and dereliction of duty is mala fide, and has been passed with an oblique purpose to bye-pass holding of a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner. It is submitted that, the respondent State having failed to justify the order of compulsory retirement on the basis of any poor record of performance of the petitioner, the same deserves to be quashed.

(3.) On behalf of the State, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader appearing for the State made some attempt to support the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that, as per the Government circulars, the petitioner could be retired compulsorily as his integrity was doubtful. It is submitted that the petitioner was on the verge of retirement and permitting such a person to continue in service would have been against the public interest. The order of compulsory retirement therefore was passed on bona fide grounds and in accordance with law.