KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Ex-Special Auditor, Cooperative Societies (Sugar), by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity and propriety of the order dated 8/08/1986 of the respondent- State of Gujarat under which in exercise of powers conferred by clause (aa) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 161 of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, he was ordered to be prematurely retired from the Government services. Copy of this order is there on the record of this special civil application as annexure `A'.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner entered in the Government services as a Clerk under the Cooperation Department of the former Government of Bombay w.e.f. 20/04/1959. Through successive promotions earned by him at fairly short intervals, as per his case, he had the opportunity of securing promotion to the post in the Gujarat Cooperative Services Class II w.e.f. 28/05/1985. He obtained Government Diploma in Cooperation and Accountancy in September, 1986 which as per his case is a prerequisite for holding responsible positions in the Cooperation Department. The details of the service career of the petitioner have been given in para-5 of the special civil application. The petitioner submits that during his long service of about 27 years, he never got adverse note in his Annual Confidential Reports. Further it is stated that he never suffered stagnation and excepting a single instance of minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without future effect under the order dated 1 6/02/1982 and that too pertaining to a remote period of his service as a Debt/Redemption Officer, Himmatnagar during 2-5-1977 to 31-8-1980, his record of service was not only clean but it must be very good also. The petitioner then made reference to the fact of filing by him an earlier petition being special civil application No. 1361 of 1982. In that petition, the petitioner claimed for his deemed promotion to the Gujarat State Cooperative Services Class II. That promotion was withhold, as per the case of the petitioner, for the reason that his one increment for a period of one year without future effect has been withhold as penalty. That special civil application is still pending. In this factual matrix, the petitioner submitted that his premature retirement from services is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. In the facts of this case, the petitioner submitted that it can not be taken to be a case where the petitioner has become altogether a deadwood or inefficient for the services where there may be justification for his premature retirement.

(3.) This special civil application is contested by the respondents. A reply affidavit has been filed and therein it is stated that the review committee after reviewing the case of the petitioner carefully concluded that the petitioner was not found eligible to be continued in Government service and accordingly recommended his case for premature retirement. That recommendation has been accepted by the State Government and accordingly he was ordered to be retired prematurely. In para-5 of reply to the special civil application, it is stated that good confidential reports and good academic qualifications of an officer are not the only criteria for further continuance in Government service beyond the age of 50 years. In para-6 it is stated that if there is reason to believe that the Government servant is lacking in integrity, it would be appropriate to consider him for premature retirement irrespective of the assessment of his ability or efficiency in work. The petitioner was stated to be retired prematurely from services on these criteria. Then reference has been made to the chargesheet given to the petitioner for the alleged misconduct and of departmental inquiry proceedings as mentioned in para-6, which reads as under: