UNION OF INDIA Vs. A S BHATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment respectively preferred by the respondent and the appellants in W.P.No. 6987 of 1989 and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the appellants in W.A.No.44 of 1993 are referred in the judgment as the appellants and the respondent in that appeal as the respondent. So far as W.A.No. 158 of 1993 is concerned the parties thereto are to be respectively referred when the consideration of that appeal is taken up.

(2.) The order of compulsory retirement of the respondent passed under Rule 56(j)of the Fundamental Rules having been set aside by the learned single Judge this appeal has been preferred. The respondent, an Ex-Army personnel born on 5-4-1939 was appointed as Inspector of CISF (Central Industrial Security Force) on 21-2-1972 in which post he was confirmed on 25-11-1974. He was promoted as Assistant Commandant on 15-2-1975 and was regularised in the post on 1-1-1981. The order of compulsory retirement was passed on 12-5-1989 effective from 21-6-1989. It is not known whether the respondent preferred any departmental appeal against the order there being no averment in the writ petition or in the counter-affidavit in that regard but however there is no stand taken by the appellants that the respondent had not exhausted the departmental remedies before coming before the Court. The writ petition was filed making out the case that the compulsory retirement was exclusively based upon adverse ACRs from the years 1982 to 1984.The adverse entries had been mala fidely made at the instance of the Ex-Director General of CISF, Mr. Surendra Nath who was a dose friend of the respondent's father-in-law who was a rich man and against whose, wishes he had married his daughter. Mr. Surendra Nath had used his influence for the purpose on the DIG at Madras, the Assistant Inspector General who was also holding additional charge of Commandant and the Commandant at Sriharikota, all of whom were named, to make adverse entries in the confidential reports during the period 1982 to 1984. The service record of the respondent was otherwise uniformly good throughout and he had earned citations from 1972 onwards from the respective heads of Industries where he had been posted but that the Review Committee making the recommendation for his retirement did not take those into account. The respondent had also never been placed under any departmental proceedings. The retirement for such reasons could not be said to be in public interest.

(3.) In setting aside the order of Compulsory retirement the learned single Judge held the service career of the respondent to have been uniformly good excpt for the entries in 1982 to 1984 and the citations received by him to have been not taken into account. Exception was also taken to the appellants having not taken any decision under Paragraph II (6) (i) of the Instructions regarding premature retirement of Central Government Servants issued in Government of India,Ministry of HomeAffairs,OfficeMemorandumNo.25013/14/77-Estt. (A), dated the 5th January, 1978, referred hereinafter as "the Instructions", as to whether the respondent could have been at least retained in the lower post from which he was promoted if he was not suitable to be continued as Assistant Commandant.