AMBALAL RAMJIBHAI SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which requires consideration and adjudication in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the impugned order of the respondent-authority of compulsory retirement of the petitioner passed no 24.4.1990 is in any way unjust, unreasonable or vulnerable requiring interference for the purpose of quashing the same and for reinstating the petitioner in service.

(2.) The respondent-authority passed the impugned order on 24.4.90 in accordance with clause (aa)(i)(1) of Rule 161(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), and as amended from time to time, prematurely retiring the petitioner who was, at the relevant time, working as Executive Engineer (Civil), Narmada Project Planning and Design Circle, Unit-E, Gandhinagar, under the Superintending Engineer, Narmada Project Planning and Design Circle, Gandhinagar. The petitioner was ordered to compulsorily retire from Government services forthwith in the interest of public service by giving him three months' notice pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period as per the provisions of clause (aa)(i) of the Rules, under the order dated 24th April, 1990, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The compulsory retirement, as such, is not punitive. The Rules provide for review of such cases for continuance in service beyond certain age of the delinquent. In the case of the petitioner, the review committee examined his case, and after consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the confidential reports of the petitioner and also the overall performance of the petitioner during the course of his service, the Committee found that there were adverse entries of considerable serious nature and which were put in the confidential report right from the year 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner had also earned some corrective remarks in the confidential reports for the period from 21.10.1985 to 31.3.86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The adverse remarks were also made in the confidential reports regarding his integrity for the period 1.1.73 to 27.2.73, 1975-76 and 1976-77. Most of the adverse entries remained unchallenged as no representation came to be made by the petitioner. The performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory as reflected also from the confidential reports. These facts are amply borne out from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents by the Under Secretary (Services), Narmada and Water Resources Department, Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar.