H V SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Deputy Director in the Directorate of Health, Medical Services and Medical Education, Government of Gujarat, filed this Special Civil Application challenging the order dated 10.7.86 of the respondent-State under which he was ordered to be compulsorily retired from the Government services.

(2.) This order has been passed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by clause (aa) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. After filing this Special Civil Application, the petitioner has got amended the same. The respondents have filed three replies to this Special Civil Application. The first reply is of 23rd July 1986. This affidavit has been filed by Mr.Christy Fernandez, Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Health & Family Department. Then comes the second reply filed by the same deponent on 28th July 1986. The last reply dated 21st March 1987 has been filed by Mr.Madhusudan P.Parekh, Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Health & Family Welfare Department. None put appearance for respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned in this Special Civil Application is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. The respondents have not produced on record of this Special Civil Application, any material on the basis of which a prudent man could have formed an opinion that the petitioner has become a dead-wood which should be chopped off. It has next been contended that the order is nothing but only a malafide order passed by respondents to punish the petitioner for his act of filing Special Civil Application before this Court for his legitimate claims. Though the respondents have filed three replies to this Special Civil Application, no material whatsoever has been produced on record to show that the petitioner had any adverse remarks in his service record or that he has ever been punished for any misconduct or otherwise his work was not satisfactory to the extent where his services have to be brought to an end in public interest or that his integrity was doubtful or he was dishonest person, etc. Even the proceedings of the Review Committee have not been produced on record of this Special Civil Application by respondents. Over and above this, the service record of the petitioner has also not been produced on record of this Special Civil Application by respondents.