SAMBHAJI RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE Vs. K V BHANUJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondents dated 08.05.1997 prematurely retiring the petitioner.

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police in S.R.P. Force Group VIII, that; he was awarded various medals, certificates and letter of appreciation. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that while petitioner was on sick leave with effect from 13th April, 1998, the impugned order dated 8th May, 1997 came to be served upon the petitioner, by which the petitioner was prematurely retired. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the said order of premature retirement, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Tushar Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that last "Adverse remarks" communicated to the petitioner was for the year 1995 -96 vide letter dated 20th September, 1996 was (1) Overall assessment An average type of officer. It is submitted by him that as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P.Malhotra v/s. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala reported in 1990 AIR SC 2055 as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court assessment of a Officer as a average officer will not justify the exercise of powers of compulsory retirement. He has further submitted that prior to the said order, for the year 1994 -95 adverse remarks were recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner to the effect that assessment of the petitioner's integrity is doubtful. However, against the said adverse remarks, the petitioner filed his representation against the same to the competent authority vide letter dated 23/12/1995. However, the representation was not accepted and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 21/03/1996 that his representation is rejected. However, the said adverse remarks were thereafter not continued in the subsequent A.C.R. for the year 1995 -96. Therefore, it is submitted that on the basis of the adverse remarks of average type of officer, order of premature retirement order ought not have been passed by the respondents and therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application. It is also further submitted by him that during his service tenure, the petitioner received many awards, medals, certificates, etc. and, therefore, the order of premature retirement requires to be quashed and set aside.