STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DINANATH NARSYA TAMBAKHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Pune dated 16-4-1985 in Civil Appeal No.974 of 1983 wherein the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took me through the judgments of the courts below and also the relevant documents and submitted before me that the appellate court has committed error in deciding the appeal filed by the respondent plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Smt. Purohit, while taking me through the judgment, submitted that the appellate court was not justified in holding that the decision of the Government to retire the plaintiff compulsorily is not taken by the proper authority and further not in the public interest and the appellate court has committed error while deciding the appeal in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that the plaintiff was appointed by the respondents in the year 1939 as a Clerk. During the tenure of his service from 1939 the plaintiff was deputed to the Civil Supplies Department to the post of Inspector in the year 1943. Thereafter in the year 1948 the plaintiff was repatriated to the parent department viz. at the initial appointment in a Cooperative Department of the State Government. The plaintiff was thereafter promoted as Assistant Registrar, Cooperation at Thane and was holding the officer as Class-II Officer. While working as an Assistant Registrar in the Cooperation Department, the plaintiff was placed in charge of the Pune District Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank as Assistant Registrar. It is also found that in the years 1958-59, 1961-62, 1964-65 and 1966-67 the adverse remarks were communicated to the plaintiff. In the due course, considering the length of service, the plaintiff was due for crossing the efficiency bar on 10-2-1963. Somehow, the plaintiff was not permitted to cross the efficiency bar on due date and the plaintiff was allowed to cross the efficiency bar after two years i.e. on 1-5-1965. The ground for not permitting the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar was his adverse remarks for the relevant year. It is also not in dispute that though the plaintiff was due for crossing the efficiency bar on 10-2-1963 and was permitted only to cross efficiency bar after two years viz. on 1-5-1965 due to adverse remarks, the defendant has not challenged the action of the respondent authority. As observed earlier, for the relevant years from 1958-59 etc. the adverse remarks were also communicated to the plaintiff for the year 1966-67 but equally it is an admitted position that though due to adverse remarks for the year 1966-67 the plaintiff was permitted to cross the efficiency bar in the year 1965. The State Government while considering the cases of other employees including the plaintiff on 22-9-1970 a decision was taken to retire employees of the State Government including the plaintiff compulsorily vide letter No. GSG-2070/6404-C-3 DATED 22-9-1970. The plaintiff has made representation before the State Government against the decision to compulsorily retire and the said representation was submitted on 22-10-1970 and the State Government accepted the request and the first notice for compulsory retirement was withdrawn. However, as per second notice issued by the State Government on 28-6-1971, the State Government has passed order for compulsorily retiring the plaintiff by a fresh notification under B.C.S.R. 161-C1. The said notice is under challenge by filing suit before the trial Court. It can be seen from the said second notice of compulsory retirement that there is a reference of withdrawal of the earlier notice and by the impugned second notice, the plaintiff was given notice for compulsory retirement under the Bombay Civil Services Rule (7th Amendment), 1971 by giving three months notice. In the said notice, there is a reference in respect of Government Resolution, Finance Department dated 16-4-1964.