ARUN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially when this writ petition was filed, challenge was made to an order-dated 10-11-2005 issued by respondent No. 3, asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service in public interest. However, during the pendency of this writ petition vide order-dated 31-3-2006 as the petitioner is compulsorily retired in public interest, the writ petition has been amended and challenge is also made to this order-dated 31-3-2006-Annexure P/8. Facts that have come on record indicate that petitioner is a Graduate having obtained a BA Degree from Awadesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa, in the year 1986. He was appointed as a Moharir vide order-dated 25-2-1980 in the establishment of Nagar Panchayat Niwadi, District Tikamgarh. It is the case of the petitioner that he had performed his duties to the best of his ability and there was nothing adverse against him. His case was also to be considered for promotion, but for some reason or the other he was not promoted. Be it as it may be, it is stated by Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner is shown to have been compulsorily retired in public interest, but for doing so there is nothing to indicate that the overall service record of the petitioner was assessed and thereafter the impugned action taken treating the petitioner to be a dead-wood. Referring to Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the years 2002-2004, collectively filed by the respondents as Annexure R/1, learned counsel argues that these adverse entries were never intimated to the petitioner, they were not brought to his notice and action taken on the basis of the four isolated adverse entries that also without notice to the petitioner, is unsustainable.

(2.) It is Stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that compulsory retirement can be undertaken only if the contract of appointment and the rules and regulations governing the appointment, contemplates a provision for the same, in the present case, it is stated that the respondents have not indicated any rule or regulation on the basis of which the impugned action is taken. Apart from the fact that the statutory powers based on which the impugned action is taken is not brought to the notice of this Court, learned counsel emphasized that no material is adduced by the respondents on the basis of which the conclusion arrived at by the Municipal Council to treat the petitioner as dead wood is established from the material available on record. It is stated that an arbitrary decision is taken without evaluation of the entire service record in accordance with law and, therefore, the action impugned is Unsustainable.

(3.) Respondents on being noticed have filed a reply and the reply filed by them is a cryptic reply, does not answer the objections raised by the petitioner, does not point out as to how and on what basis the opinion was formed with regard to the petitioner being a dead wood and the decision taken in public interest to compulsorily retire him. Except for contending in the return that the overall service record of the petitioner was wholly 'average' and 'unsatisfactory', not a single adverse entry report of material is adduced before this Court in Support of the aforesaid contentions. Except for certain adverse entries that also filed by the petitioner, for the year 2002-04, there is nothing on record to indicate to this Court as to how and on what basis the assessment of service record is undertaken and the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner arrived at.