VITHALRAO RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the State Government against the petitioner on June 18, 1971 informing him that the Government has decided to retire him prematurely in public interest in view of his attaining the age of 50 years. Under the said order he was advised to retire voluntarily by giving three months' notice in terms of the Bombay Civil Services (Seventh Amendment) Rules of 1971. He was also informed that in the event of his not choosing to retire voluntarily, Government itself would issue necessary order, directing his retirement.

(2.) THIS Special Civil Application was filed in this Court on July 19, 1971 and rule was granted on July 26, 1971. During the pendency of this Special Civil Application, another notice dated August 6, 1971 was served on him retiring him from service in public interest. The petitioner made an application soliciting leave to amend the petition so as to challenge also the order dated August 6, 1971. The respondent did not object, and we accordingly granted the leave as the amendment had become necessary due to the subsequent orders. It is really of a formal nature.

(3.) ON behalf of the State one Mr. Dandekar, Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, has filed an affidavit. The contents of the petitioner's petition have been all denied. In the petition the adverse remarks of the District Superintendent of Police, Sholapur were alleged to be of the year 1958, though at the time of the arguments yesterday, Mr. Singhvi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, stated before us that the year 1958 was a mistake for the year 1968. In the counter affidavit the deponent has disclaimed any knowledge of the said remarks of 1958 and he could not obviously say anything about the 1968 remarks. It is asserted that apart from the said remarks, there were other remarks also recorded in the record sheet of the petitioner and the statement in the petition that there were no other adverse remarks or that his record was clean or satisfactory or was without any blemish was denied. Reference is then made specifically to the adverse remarks conveyed by the Inspector General of Police to him on August 16, 1968, a copy of which is enclosed along with the said affidavit. Reference is also made to four major and two minor punishments awarded to him during the period of his service and also to the petitioner's suspension for his conduct during the communal riots at Jalgaon, as also to the warning conveyed to him on Jun 5, 1971. It is, however, made clear in the counter affidavit that the order of compulsory retirement was not based either on the four major and two minor punishments or on his failure to verify the averments in the notice against Kaniram or on his conduct during the riots at Jalgaon.