SURYAKANT C SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Assistant Controller, Civil Supplies Department, filed this petition and challenged the order of the respondent-State dated 21.7.1998 (Annexure-A) under which in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, the petitioner was ordered to be prematurely retired from the Government service with effect from the date of delivery of the said order.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application being Civil Application No. 7055 of 1997 for amending the Special Civil Application. The said Civil Application has been decided by the Court on 8.8.1997 and the petitioner has been permitted to amend this Special Civil Application. However, amendment in the Special Civil Application has not been carried out. Still, the facts which are sought of be pleaded by the amendment in the Special Civil Application are taken into consideration.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has unblemished and untarnished service record of 28 years, he was promoted in the month of May 1981 and in these facts it cannot be said to be a case of doubtful integrity or that the petitioner is a deadwood, who has to be chopped off in the public interest. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the provisions of Rule 161 of the Rules of 1959 have been resorted to in the case of the petitioner to punish him. Out of two criminal cases filed against the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1958, in the first case "A" Summary Report has been submitted which has been accepted by the Court whereas in the second criminal case though charge-sheet has been submitted in the Court the same is still at the initial stage, i.e., even the charges were not framed. So, it is a case where for the earlier charges of corruption against the petitioner, which are subject-matter of trial against him, he has been ordered to be prematurely retired from the Government service by the respondent, which is legally impermissible. In support of his contentions, Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on three decisions of this Court detailed as under :