(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner who retired from the post of Deputy Collector, Revenue Department, filed this petition before this Court challenging the order dated 5-4-1987 ordering him to retire premature. The petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk on 17-5-1959. On 25th September 1979, he was promoted to the post of Mamlatdar. He was placed under suspension in September 1982. He approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 4072 of 1982 which was accepted by this Court on 27th December, 1982. This Court had directed the respondents to finalise the inquiry * challenging order of premature retirement. report on or before 28-2-1983. Despite the aforesaid direction, the inquiry was not completed. Hence, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 793 of 1983. In May 1983, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. Though the inquiry was completed, but did not finalise the departmental proceedings. In the meanwhile, the respondents promoted officers junior to the petitioner which compelled him to again approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 5409 of 1986. After filing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application before this Court, the respondents finalised the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and he had further been promoted to the post of Deputy Collector under order dated 11-6-1987. The petitioner was posted as Deputy Director, Small Savings at Ahmedabad which he joined on 10th July, 1987. On completion of departmental proceedings, the respondents vide order dated 18th August, 1987 permitted the petitioner to cross Efficiency Bar on 9-6-1985. Accordingly, all the increments due to the petitioner were also released. The petitioner has come up with the case that he had brilliant record of service to his credit. During the period of 28 years of service, the petitioner has not been communicated any adverse remarks. Despite this brilliant performance and meritorious service, the respondents have ordered for his premature retirement.
(2.) Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 which is admittedly applicable to the case of the petitioner, it is a case of a compulsory retirement. The age of superannuation is 58 years and clause 2(aa) provides for compulsory retirement. In reply-affidavit, the respondents have come with the case that he has to his credit admittedly punishment of withholding of three increments with future effect and as such, it cannot be said that his service record is very good or meritorious. It has further been averred that integrity of the petitioner was also found doubtful and several remarks to that effect were made in the service record of the petitioner and the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful, therefore, it was thought fit to retire him prematurely. The respondents have not given details of adverse remarks about integrity being doubtful which has been communicated to the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has come up with the case in re-joinder that for the last 10 years, he was not served with any adverse remarks including regarding integrity. The petitioner further stated in re-joinder that while working as Deputy Collector, he had been awarded a cash prize of Rs. 1,000.00 vide GR FD No. ENN/1188/904/ B dated 24-1-1989. So far as punishment of withholding of three increments is concerned, the petitioner has come up with a case that against the punishment order, he filed a writ petition and the same is pending. Punishment order is dated 31-12- 1986 and he has been given promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on 11-6- 1987. The incident which was a subject-matter of the inquiry was of the year 1981. There is nothing adverse against the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated back and the inquiry has been completed and he was given promotion and he was given the posting on the post of Deputy Director of Small Savings at Ahmedabad. He had done meritorious work for which he has been given cash reward.
(3.) It is the case where case of the petitioner was not considered fairly and impartially. Looking to the facts of this case and particularly the fact that in none of the annual performance appraisal reports, his integrity has been reported to be doubtful, he has not been communicated that any such remarks have been made against him, I find that premature retirement of the petitioner is solely and wholly based on the ground that his integrity was considered to be doubtful. But there is no material on record nor service record of the petitioner is produced for the perusal of this Court to show that at any stage, integrity of the petitioner was reported to be doubtful. Though, in the reply, it has been stated that the integrity of the petitioner was found to be doubtful on several occasions, but nothing has been produced on record in support thereof. On the contrary, as stated earlier, the petitioner was given promotion. He was allowed to cross E.B. His services were found to be meritorious for which a cash reward was given. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it cannot be said that the decision of the respondents to prematurely retire the petitioner is justified. It is not a case where on the basis of the pleadings of the respondents, it can be said that the retirement of the petitioner is in the public interest.