A S BHATTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the order dt.15-5-1989, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as Asst. Commandant, C.I.S.F. issued by the third respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to declare Rule 560) of the Fundamental Rules as violative of principles of natural justice and to direct the respondents not to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service till he attains the age of superannuation.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that after joining the service in C.I.S.F., he married a girl from a rich family. His parent-in-law did not like the petitioner to continue in service and desired that the petitioner should resign and join their business in England. The petitioner rejected the offer and maintained to have his independence. On account of his refusal to the offer of his in-law, the parent- in-law of the petitioner tried to bring pressure on the petitioner and the matrimonial life of the petitioner also became miserable. The petitioner categorically states that the former Director General of C.I.S.F., one Mr. Surendra Nath who was said to be a close friend of his father-in-law, put pressure on him and tried to see that the petitioner quits service. To achieve the object, itis stated that few Officers who are superiors to the petitioner were influenced. On account of that influence, some adverse entries in the Service Register of the petitioner were also made during the years 1982-1984 with mala fide intention to spoil the records, so that the petitioner could quit the job. Later on it is averred that he was transferred to various places such as Bokaro, Bhopal, Calcutta and later on he was posted in C.I.S.F., Unit VPT, Visakhapatnam in February, 1985. Then after wards, the petitioner had no problem on account of Surendra Nath's retirement from service and no influence could be exerted on the officials.

(3.) While so it is stated by the petitioner that the order impugned retiring him at the age of 50 years, was issued, basing on the earlier confidential reports for the period from 1982-1984, which according to the petitioner, the officials were influenced by the Ex-Director General Mr. Surendra Nath. It is stated that the entire service' record from the year 1972 onwards, excepting for a brief period, was good and no charges of enquiry or corruption or dishonesty against him were framed. On the other hand, it is stated that the petitioner earned several citations commending his service. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the respondents have power under .Rule 560) of the Fundamental Rules to retire any official on his reaching fifty years of age by reviewing his performance, the authorities should, while exercising discretion, have to take into account the various aspects and then retire him.