MANOHAR SADASHIV MADKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice dated 22nd March 1982 directing a premature retirement of the petitioner with the expiry of three months from the date of notice is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Overseer on 19.1.1959. He was promoted as Sub-Divisional Officer, a Class II post with effect from 30th Aug. 1969. On 18.11.1981 he was promoted as Executive Engineer, Class I service. He continued to hold that post. While he was discharging his duties as the Executive Engineer he was served with the notice dated 22nd March 1988 directing his premature retirement on expiry of three months from the date of notice. The reason given in the notice was that it was in the public interest to retire him from the service. The notice is obviously issued under rule 65, though the notice shows that it was issued under rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules 1980.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he earned good remarks from his superiors throughout his service till he was promoted as Executive Engineer. Thereafter he received two adverse confidential remarks in the year 1982-83 and 1983-84. He did make representation against the confidential remarks of 1982-83 but that representation was rejected. The confidential remarks for the year 1985-86 were communicated to him on 14.2.1987 and he has made a representation against the same, which is pending before the Government. He has also challenged the confidential remarks for the year 1984-85. That representation is also pending before the competent authority. His contention is that the confidential remarks against which the representation has been made before the competent authority could not be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. However, the authorities did consider the confidential remarks for 5 years pending for the year 1985-86 which was not permissible under law. According to him, the consideration of these confidential remarks against him in spite of the representations preferred by him against them, have been pending, vitiates the whole process of deliberations and consultation and as such, the impugned notice which is the outcome of these deliberations and consultations stands vitiated. He, therefore, seeks an appropriate writ from this Court quashing the notice.