STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAVJIBHAI SHANKERBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the State of Gujarat and its Director of Agriculture is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge setting aside the order dated 12.11.1987, whereby, the respondent was prematurely retired and relieved in exercise of the powers under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules (BCSR).

(2.) The respondent (original petitioner) joined the Directorate of Agriculture as a Supervisor in 1960 and after crossing Efficiency Bars, he was promoted as Deputy Director of Agriculture in the year 1981. A chargesheet dated 9.7.1987 came to be issued to the respondent before the order dated 12.11.1987 prematurely retiring him from service. The respondent's age at that time was only 50. What appealed to the learned single Judge was that before taking the decision of prematurely retiring the respondent, the Review Committee had relied upon only the service record of the past ten years and the entire record of service of the respondent was not evaluated. And, therefore, relying upon the ratio of the judgment in S. RAMACHANDRA RAJU v. STATE OF ORISSA [ 1994 (5) J.T. SC 459 ], the impugned order was made. 2.1The other main observations made by the learned single Judge after perusal of the record and about which there is no controversy are as under:

(3.) Even within the parameters prescribed by the above propositions, it was found and held by the learned single Judge that the exercise of evaluation undertaken by the Review Committee was not proper insofar as, instead of the entire record of service, only the record of the past 10 years was evaluated. It has throughout been reiterated and emphasized on behalf of the respondent that except for the adverse remarks for the years 1982-83 and 1985-86 and the charges levelled against him, which were yet to be proved in the enquiry, he had an unblemished record of service. It was again argued that had the adverse remarks in respect of the year 1982-83 been serious, he would not have been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar on 1.1.1984. Equating that with promotion, it was further submitted that crossing of the Efficiency Bar wiped out the adverse remarks and could not have been considered by the Review Committee. It was also sought to be re-agitated that the entries of adverse remarks were improper and his representations against the adverse entries were improperly turned down by the Government. And, in any case, the adverse remarks were not such as would warrant or justify the action of prematurely retiring the respondent from service.