N M CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by an Executive Engineer retired prematurely on 29.6.1987, who would have otherwise also superannuated on 31.12.1989, came up for admission hearing after almost three years of its filing, while the judgment of the learned Single Judge which is called into question is dated 10.12.1997 in the petition which was filed in the year 1987. The impugned judgment opens with the note that none remained present for the petitioner, the appellant herein, even as the matter was called out in three rounds and none assisted the Court for the respondent either. This narration of facts about the state of affairs is too eloquent in itself to require any further comments. If that were not enough, as if to compensate for loss of opportunity, a prolix memo of appeal running into 40 pages containing more facts and arguments in detail rather than grounds of appeal was pressed by cursory arguments which were left incomplete and abandoned halfway by the learned counsel.

(2.) It is contended in the memo of appeal that the learned Single Judge ought to have adjourned the hearing instead of deciding it ex pane on merits and that, therefore, the impugned judgment was null and void. Referring to his long service-record in detail, it is contended that the petitioner was a man of positive merits all throughout his career and the impugned order of compulsory retirement was motivated by extraneous consideration and suffering from total non-application of mind. The appellant had not attracted any adverse remarks in his long service carrier of 30 years; and the adverse remarks belatedly communicated in the last three years were, in fact, not adverse. As regards the several charges and inquiry held thereon, it is submitted that either the charges were not sustainable or abandoned or too petty to warrant and justify premature retirement. Thus, in short, while challenging the order of premature retirement, the appellant has indirectly sought a declaration that the adverse remarks in the later years of his career were improper and the charges on the basis of which enquiries were held were also false. In the process, however, it is admitted that the confidential reports in respect of the years 1982-83, 1984-85 and for the period from 1.4.1985 to 21.10.1985, and the remarks were not entirely good and that no less than six enquiries have been held against the appellant involving charges of negligence and carelessness and causing loss and damage. Out of these enquiries, the appellant was actually punished with minor punishments in at least three.

(3.) The law on the subject to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles which have been broadly summarised as under by the Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) JT SC 223.