A K PATEL PI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of compulsory retirement at Annexure A dated 19.12.1986 passed by the Director General of Police. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the impugned order is passed by invoking the provisions of Rule 161(1)(aa)(i) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner against the order of his premature retirement, it is necessary to briefly refer to his service record. The petitioner joined the services of Police Department as Police Constable in the year 1951 and was promoted as Head Constable within four months. The petitioner was promoted as Police Sub Inspector in the year 1962 and was further promoted as Police Inspector on 6.6.1974. It is averred by the petitioner that in his entire service career, barring one incident, there are no adverse remarks communicated to him with regard to his integrity; that the adverse remarks have been communicated to him by the District Superintendent of Police, Kutch Mr.Kuldeep Sharma because the petitioner had refused to submit to the illegality and had insisted for a written order and for that, Mr.Sharma passed adverse remarks against the petitioner. It is, therefor, the grievance of the petitioner that adverse remarks were passed against the petitioner arbitrarily and in colourable exercise of power. It is further averred that the authorities have not considered confidential reports of 8 to 10 years of the petitioner while passing the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner has pointed out that he has althroughout discharged his duties honestly and, therefore, it is difficult to understand as to how he can be retired by branding him either as inefficient or corrupt. It is further averred that the impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioner and, therefore, it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr.C.B.Trivedi, Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department, has filed affidavit-in-reply in the present case. Along with the affidavit, a statement showing assessment of ten years Annual Confidential Reports prior to petitioner's premature retirement is annexed. The deponent, in the affidavit-in reply has pointed out that the petitioner has been prematurely retired on the assessment of his confidential reports of last 8 to 10 years i.e. from 1976 to 1986. It is the case of the respondents that the case of the petitioner was reviewed when he attained the age of 55 years in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 161(1)(aa)(1)(i) of the B.C.S.R. and in accordance with the instructions contained in Government Circular dated 25.10.1963 and 2.11.197 Para 2(d) of the Circular dated 25.10.1963 provides that in a case in which the authority concerned has reasonable cause to believe that the Government servant is lacking in integrity, it would be appropriate to consider him for premature retirement irrespective of his ability or efficiency in work. According to the deponent, the petitioner's record of last ten years showed that he was communicated adverse remarks for two consecutive years of 1984-85 and 1985-86. Furthermore, it was also found that the petitioner's integrity was doubtful and some vigilance cases of corruption were pending against the petitioner and it was decided to retire the petitioner prematurely in public interest as retention of such a Government servant was harmful to the public interest. It is further stated by the deponent that the then District Superintendent of Police, Kutch had passed adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1984-85 stating "doubtful integrity" on the basis of concrete details. The Reporting Officer had attached a detailed note also in this regard and the petitioner had not preferred any representation against the said adverse remarks.