NARANBHAI MUMAYABHAI GOHIL Vs. DISTRICT SUPRITENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 24-4-1985 retiring him on invalid pension.

(2.) The petitioner joined service as an Unarmed Police Constable in the Police Department at Bhuj under the order of respondent No. 1 on 15-1-1977. He was then sent for training for 8 months and was posted at Gandhidham. In the year 1980 he met with accident and his left leg was required to be amputated. However, on applying artificial leg he was then posted at Bhuj in Modus Operandi Bureau (M.O.B.) in the year 1981. He was then sent for V.H.P. Operator training in the year 1982 and was posted as V.H.P. Operator (R.T.P.C.) at Anjar in the year 1983. The petitioner was then made to retire compulsorily by the order of respondent No. 1 dated 24-4-1985. This order of retirement is challenged in this petition.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the said order asking the petitioner to retire on invalid pension is in total disregard of the provisions of Rule 202A(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. According to the petitioner if the petitioner is found invalid under the said Rule then in any case in view of the nature of the permanent disability if no useful purpose will be served by an appeal, then also he was required to be informed that if he so desires, he may within one month submit to the Authority a request to be examined by the Medical Appeal Board and before that the Authority is required to come to the conclusion that the Government servant is completely and permanently incapacitated for further service. Neither of the requirements under the said Rule are being with and straightway the order retiring the petitioner on invalid pension is passed. The said order is, therefore, invalid and contrary to the Rules. It is also bad, unjust and violative of the principle of natural justice as the petitioner is not given any opportunity to explain his case against alleged inference that he has become completely and permanently incapacitated. The order, therefore, should be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared to be in employment.