VASUDEO PANDURANG PATHAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiffs second appeal. The plaintiff was employed as a Police Prosecutor, with effect from 4th December, 1952. He continued to be in service till he received a notice from the Government compulsorily retiring him. The said notice was dated 15th October, 1970 based on the High Power Special Review Committees recommendations dated 7th July, 1970. Plaintiffs date of birth is 12th December, 1916. Ordinarily he could not have been retired before 12th December, 1974 on which date he would be at 58. However, his notice dated 15th October, 1970 was withdrawn. Notices for compulsorily retirements were issued by the Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 161 of B.C.S. Rules. The said rules were in the meanwhile amended. The above notice of compulsory retirement was withdrawn. The plaintiff thereafter was served with a memo dated 9th June, 1971. The memo indicated that the Government had decided to compulsorily retire the plaintiff. The said memo gave an option to him to voluntarily retire by giving notice of three months and also avail of the leave preparatory to retirement if there by any to his credit. The plaintiff thereafter exercised his choice of voluntary retirement on 8th July, 1971. He, however, indicated in the said notice dated 8th July, 1971 that he was retiring voluntarily without prejudice to his rights to his objections to the legality of the Government decision to retire him compulsorily. He, thereafter challenged the validity of this memo dated 9th June, 1971 by the suit giving rise to this second appeal instituted by him on 4th October, 1971.

(2.) Plaintiffs case can be summarised thus. His service record was good. There was nothing adverse against him. No adverse remark was ever communicated to him. Decision to compulsorily retire him was arbitrary and without any material on record and also in violation of principles of natural justice. His further case was that his voluntary retirement under the notice dated 8th July, 1971 was induced by the Governments offer to permit him to avail of the leave preparatory to retirement. He also further pleaded that the memo informing him of the Governments decision to compulsorily retire him also operated as a threat and his voluntarily retirement was under coercion. According to him the said notice of voluntary retirement was void for want of his volition.

(3.) All that the defendants had stated in their written statement was that his relevant confidential records were considered by the concerned Special Review Committee consisting of the four Secretaries and it was only thereafter that the decision to compulsorily retire him was taken. The plaintiff, however, was given a chance of voluntarily retirement in accordance with the provisions of 161(c-2) as amended. On his voluntary retirement the question of the legality or otherwise of the decision to compulsorily retire cannot arise.