LAWS(BOM)-1971-12-1

D S RAME Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On December 23, 1971
D.S.RAME Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner, who was compulsorily retired under Rule 161 (c-1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, challenges on several grounds the validity of the order of compulsory retirement passed against him in May, 1971. It is not necessary to repeat the grounds which are similar to the grounds, which were urged challenging the validity of the said Rule 161 (c-1) and were overruled by us in Special Civil Application No. 1488 of 1971, decided on November 22, 1971.

(2.) To appreciate the additional grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner in the instant case, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. The petitioner was born on August 22, 1915. He was initially recruited as a range forest officer in 1942 in the forest department of the then Bombay State. He served as such till 1959, when he was promoted to Maharashtra Forest Service Class II. He was further promoted to Class I of that service in 1964, and was working as divisional forest officer, Ghod Project, Junnar. The petitioner alleges in the petition that though he did not belong to Indian Forest Service, due to his exceptional merits and efficiency he had been given the charge of Indian Forest Service cadre post right from his promotion to Class I service in 1964. He claims that throughout his service, his record of service was very satisfactory and without any blemish. He got all his regular increments and promotions without anybody superseding him. On the contrary, he superseded two of his senior officers at the time of promotion to Class II and Class I service. He earned good confidentials throughout and particularly for three years before he filed the petition. The petitioner has averred in the petition that during his long service only on two occasions, viz., in 1961 and in 1965, he was adversely commented upon and that also to the effect that he was soft with his subordinates. He claimed to have good health and averred that he had never taken any long sick leave on medical grounds. He was not asked to get himself medically examined at any time by the administration. He thus claimed to be fit and efficient to discharge the duties of his office. Notwithstanding this, on April 9, 1971 he received a confidential memo from the Chief Conservator of Forests informing him that the Government had decided to make him retire from Government service and that he was advised in terms of Government Circular, General Administration Department, No. SRV-1068-D dated May 11, 1968 that he should voluntarily retire by giving the requisite notice, without waiting for the attainment of the age of 58 years. On April 30, 1971 the petitioner made a representation that under the circular of the Government dated January 15, 1969 bearing No. SRV/1069/D, it was the policy of the Government to continue Government servants who were physically and mentally fit and whose record was satisfactory till they attain the age of 58 years, and that since he was keeping good health and was physically and mentally fit to discharge his duties and his record of service was satisfactory, he should be allowed to continue in service till he reached 58 years of his age. On June 1, 1971, however, the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated May 24, 1971 from the Secretary to Government, Revenue and Forest Department, compulsorily retiring him. The order was to the following effect :

(3.) The said petition is opposed on behalf of respondent by relying on an affidavit in reply filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department. Excepting a bare statement that the confidential records of the petitioner were seen by the review committee, who recommended that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired, the said affidavit in reply did not refer to any particulars of the confidential records, which formed the basis of the recommendation of the review committee and the decision of the Government to retire the petitioner compulsorily. On behalf of the respondent reliance was also placed on an affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forests Department, stating, inter alia, as follows :