M G PAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order of compulsory retirement dated 7.1.1993 and also the communication dated 8.1.1993 whereby he was relieved from service. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner initially joined service of the respondents on 23.3.1966 as Electrical Sub Inspector Class III and thereafter, was promoted in the year 1973 as Assistant Electrical Inspector, Class II. He was further promoted in the year 1980 to the post of Electrical Inspector, Class I. Said post he held upto 12.1.1993. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was to complete 50 years of age on 30th September, 1992. As per the circular dated 15.5.1970, the process of premature retirement was to start six months before the petitioner attains the age of 50 years. However, it was not adhered to and the petitioner was prematurely retired by order dated 7.1.1993. It is the further case of the petitioner that the entire service record of the petitioner is satisfactory. The petitioner was twice promoted and he was communicated adverse only for the period from 1.4.88 to 31.3.89. Against such adverse remarks, the petitioner had made representation. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the above adverse remarks, the petitioners made efforts to over come deficiencies pointed out in the adverse remarks and, therefore, in subsequent years of 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92,no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the work of the petitioner was found very satisfactory in subsequent years and, therefore, on solitary adverse remarks for the year 1988-89, the petitioner could not have been compulsorily retired. The petitioner has further alleged that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 23.7.1990 pertaining to the incident of 1986 of alleged demand of bribe of Rs.1000.00 in conspiracy with the Electrical Sub Inspector from one Mr. Indravadan R.Rhah. The petitioner replied the said charge sheet. Since such reply was found formidable one, the above charge sheet was amended by memo dated 18.12.1992. Copy of the charge sheet dated 23.7.90 and the memo dated 18.12.1992 amending the charge sheet are found at annexure E and F respectively. It appears that the petitioner has amended the petition so as to bring on record the development which has taken place after the order of compulsory retirement passed against him. It is stated in the amended paragraph 8A that in respect of the above charge sheet, the petitioner came to be exonerated in the inquiry. Above said inquiry had continued after the petitioner was prematurely retired. The petitioner has further alleged that such charges are considered even for making order of premature retirement and, therefore, without following principles of natural justice, such order of premature retirement could not have been passed against the petitioner.

(2.) The petition is resisted by the respondents by filing affidavit in reply on 20th July, 1999 inter alia stating that there is no question of following the instructions contained in Circular dated 15.5.1970. It is further stated that the adverse remarks contained in the CR for the year 1986-87 included very serious remarks for the entire performance of the petitioner. Such remarks were confirmed after considering the representation of the petitioner. It is further stated that the adverse remarks contained in CR for the year 1988-89 were also communicated to the petitioner and confirmed after considering his representation. It is further stated that in addition to the adverse remarks, integrity of the Government servant is also required to be considered and such remarks are not to be communicated to the Government servant concerned as per Government Resolution dated 31.3.89. It is further stated that as held by Hon ble the Supreme Court, an order of compulsory retirement is not punishment nor does it involve any stigma and, therefore, there is no base for departmental inquiry. It is further stated that for deciding the question of premature retirement of the petitioner by review committee, it has been specifically considered to ignore his involvement in the cases for which departmental inquiries have been initiated.

(3.) The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the aforesaid reply and amongst other things, the petitioner has pointed out that to circumvent the outcome of the departmental inquiry, the respondents have resorted to shortcut of prematurely retiring the petitioner. The petitioner has pointed out that in addition to the adverse remarks, if the integrity of the petitioner was to be considered, it was expected to make the petitioner know about anything against the integrity of the petitioner. It is stated that the integrity of the petitioner has never been doubted but in fact, his work has been appreciated.