HARSHADBHAI A BHATT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr P.H. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ketan A Dave, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This Special Civil Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2.11.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 330 of 1995.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was working with the respondent department. He was appointed as Telephone Operator w.e.f. 8.9.1964 at Chalala, District Amreli. The petitioner was confirmed as Telephone Operator in 1972. The petitioner was allowed to cross Efficiency Bar from 1.9.1983 and was promoted to the higher grade in the year 1991 by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In the year 1995 the petitioner was again promoted and was given higher grade. In the career of the petitioner, only once the petitioner was served with adverse remarks at the initial stage of appointment and thereafter there was no serious charges levelled against the petitioner except in two three cases minor penalty of censure or stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for 3 years was imposed. Once the petitioner was communicated about one adverse remarks in his Confidential Report. The petitioner was discharging his duties satisfactorily. However, he was served with a notice dated 18.1.1995 informing him that on his completing of thirty years' qualifying service the petitioner shall be compulsorily retiring from service. He was given three months' notice. The petitioner made representation before respondent which was rejected. Hence the petitioner filed O.A. No.330 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal".) The Tribunal by its order dated 2.10.2001 dismissed the Application of the petitioner. This order of the Tribunal is challenged in this Special Civil Application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr P H Pathak has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that an order of premature retirement should be based on the overall performance and the entire service record of the employee and this amounts to non-application of mind by the competent authority to compulsory retire the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner was discharging his duties satisfactorily and he was not a dead wood which can be chopped off while exercising power under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The fact that the petitioner was confirmed as Telephone Operator in 1972 and was allowed to cross Efficiency Bar from 1.9.1983 and was promoted to the higher grade in the year 1991 by the Departmental Promotion Committee and even he was given higher grade in 1995 show that there was no complaint against the petitioner. Communication of one adverse entry in the C.R. of the petitioner and imposing of minor penalty of 'censure' or stoppage of increment cannot be a valid ground for compulsorily retiring an employee who had put in 30 years of service. He has submitted that it is well settled principles of law by the Apex Court that the powers can be exercised if only the employee is found dead wood or his integrity is doubtful. He has further submitted that under FR 56 (j) or Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or CSR 459 (h), case of a Government servant has to be reviewed six months before he attain the age of 50 or 55 years or complete 30 years of qualifying service whichever occurs earlier. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that while deciding or recommending a case of compulsory retirement, the Review Committee has to follow the undermentioned criteria: