NARENDRAKUMAR V PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 19-0-1991, i.e.. Annexure 'F' annexed with the petition, passed by the order of the Governor and issued under the signatures of the Secretary to the Government. Social Welfare Department, under clause (aa) (i)(l) of the Rule 161(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. 1959 whereby the petitioner was made to retire from the post of Social Welfare Officer (Training) at once in the interest of public service by payment of three months pay and allowances with the further mention that the inquiry pending against the petitioner shall continue under the relevant Rules of B.C.S.R. even after his retirement.

(2.) The petitioner-was initially appointed on 5-2-1965 as Probation Officer. Remand Home in the Social Welfare Department. According to the petitioner he was confirmed on this post later on. On 25-9-1965 the petitioner was made in-charge Probation Officer and according to the petitioner he was also confirmed on this post later on. The petitioner has averred that on 31-5-1970 he was transferred as Chief Probation Officer at Rajkot where he served upto 15-9-1972 and was then transferred to Surat on 20-4-1981 and. thereafter, he was posted as Child Marriage Prevention Officer. Palanpur as a Class II Officer on 21-4-198 I. While the petitioner was so working as a Class II Officer he was selected as a direct recruit by the G.P.S.C. for being appointed as Social Welfare Officer (Training) and the order appointing him as Social Welfare Officer (Training) on the basis of his selection by the G.P.S.C. was issued on 1 1-2-1982. which has been placed on record as Annexure 'A'. It is also the petitioner's case that under Recruitment Rules of 1983 the petitioner was eligible and qualified to be considered and promoted to Class I post. but he was not so promoted while his juniors were promoted as Class I and. therefore, the petitioner preferred a Special Civil Application No. 2831 of 1988 wherein the Rule was issued by this Court and on the very same day. an order was also passed that further promotions to Class I post will be subject to the result of that petition and that the Special Civil Application No. 2831 of 1988 is pending before this Court. While making reference to G.A.D. Circular dated 30-3-1989 with regard to the recording, maintaining and communicating the Annual Confidential Reports the petitioner has stated that adverse remarks were conveyed to him for the years 1983-84. 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, which according to the petitioner were not required to be conveyed and should have been kept in a sealed cover because he had been appointed on probation as Social Welfare Officer (Training) and no order has been passed to continue the petitioner on long-term basis. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the adverse remarks for the aforesaid four years were conveyed to the petitioner and the petitioner preferred an Appeal against the adverse remarks of 1983-84 on 8-10-1984 and against the adverse remarks lor the rest of the years. the petitioner states that he had preferred Appeal on 18-7-1988 and 23-7-1988. It is also the petitioner's case that he had submitted a representation on 6-6-1981 to decide his Appeals against the adverse remarks but despite the petitioner's representation his Appeals against the adverse remarks for the years 1983 to 1987 were not decided. The petitioner has also come with the case that in the year 1987 while fixing his pay he was fixed at lower scale and being aggrieved from that he had preferred a Civil Suit No. 368 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.). Nadiad. wherein an injunction was granted protecting his salary. It is the petitioner's case that Civil Suit is still pending and the injunction is operating. It may also be pointed that in the impugned order also whereby the petitioner has been given compulsory retirement, a reference has been made in Para 4 about the pendency of this Civil suit and it has been mentioned that the matter with regard to the increment shall be decided as per the final decision in that Civil suit. The petitioner has also slated that vide Memorandum dated 29-3-1988 the petitioner was subjected to a Departmental Inquiry on the charges enclosed with this Memorandum: he had filed the reply to this charge-sheet on 12-4-1988. no further proceedings were held in this inquiry after the filing of this reply. On 5-12-1990 he had filed a complaint against his superiors before the Vigilance Commission and. thereafter, during the pendency of the Departmental Inquiry, as aforesaid, the petitioner was subjected to compulsory retirement vide impugned order dated 19-6-1991 and aggrieved from this order ot compulsory retirement dated 19-6-1991 the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) At this stage. Mr. R. .j. Oz.a has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State of Gujaral and has submitted that he is not appearing in this case now. He has also submitted that so far no reply has been filed although the matter is pending since 1991. He submits that a day's time may be given lor production of the relevant record, which will be produced tomorrow. The further dictation of this order was. therefore, deferred to 19-1-1999. On 19-1-1999. on the request of Mr. O/.a dictation of the order was further deferred to 22-1-1999.