V D DAMLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit seeking to challenge the order of his compulsory retirement from service was dismissed. A few relevant facts leading to the filing of the said suit were that the plaintiff whose date of birth was 20th of December, 1921 was appointed Farm Supervisor under Milk Commissioner, Bombay on the 26th of September, 1950. He was confirmed to the said post on the 22nd of May, 1958. On the 8th of July, 1976 the plaintiff was served with a memorandum containing adverse remarks in his confidential report for the period for the period 1970-71 to 1975-76. The said memorandum which is Exhibit B to the plaint, after intimating the adverse remarks, informed the plaintiff that no representation against the said adverse remarks would be entertained. By a notice dated the 25th of August, 1976 the plaintiff was compulsorily retired, with effect from the day immediately following, the date of expiry of the period of three months commencing from the date of the service of the notice whichever was later. The said notice is annexed at Exhibit C to the plaint. The said notice was served upon the plaintiff on the 26th of August, 1976. However, the plaintiff was relieved from his service on the 24th of November, 1976. The plaintiff by his application dated 24th of November, 1976 applied for leave which was to his credit and the same was duly sanctioned for the period 23rd November, 1976 to 2nd of January, 1977.

(2.) Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement, the plaintiff after service of the statutory notice dated the 13th February, 1979 issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed the present suit seeking to challenge the said order of compulsory retirement. The plaintiff in the said suit, inter alia, contended that the adverse remarks for the period 1970-71 to 1975-76 were communicated to him at one stretch by the letter dated the 8th of July, 1976 with a rider that no representations against the said adverse remarks would be entertained. If the Special Review Committee had placed reliance on the said adverse remarks for arriving at the conclusion that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire the plaintiff, the same was not justified and the impugned order was liable to be struck down. The plaintiff further contended that the notice of compulsory retirement was a short notice as it did not provide the requisite period contemplated for compulsory retirement. The plaintiff further contended that the notice was pre-mature. The plaintiff challenged the said order also on the ground that Dr. V.N. Patil who was the Chairman of the Special Review Committee had been stripped of his powers since prior to the passing of the order of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement was thus issued by an authority not competent to issue the same and was thus liable to be quashed.

(3.) The aforesaid contentions of the plaintiff did not find favour with the learned Judge of the trial Court, with the result the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Taking exception to the aforesaid dismissal the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.