B R GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside the the order dated 22-12-1988 of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent no. 1 at Annexure-C to the petition and the order relieving the petitioner from service at Annexure-D.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Industry Inspector in the year 1959 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Sr. Industry Inspector in the year 1966. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Industries Officer in the year 1977. It is stated that one superior Officer had passed adverse remarks against the petitioner for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 out of vindictiveness against the petitioner. During the year 1982, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad vide his judgment dated 12-7-1987 acquitted the petitioner from the charges of corruption levelled against him. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the charges were vague and general in nature and based upon the police complaint lodged at the instance of interested person. The show cause notice was issued as to why punishment under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 should not be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet by his representation dated 31-12-1987. In the departmental inquiry nothing had happened and he did not receive any notice for personal hearing in that inquiry. The petitioner received order dated 22-12-1988 passed by the respondent no. 1 compulsorily retiring him from service with immediate effect and the petitioner was relieved from service vide order dated 3-2-1989 passed by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Secretary, Gujarat State, on 18-2-1989 against the impugned order. The petitioner also made an application dated 18-2-1989 for earlier decision in the appeal and hence this petition.

(3.) It is also stated in the petition that adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner made representation in reply thereof which was pending and hence those remarks cannot be taken into consideration to pass the order of compulsory retirement. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1984 (3) SLR 325, wherein it has been held as under :