ABDUL HAFEEZ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the compulsory retirement ordered under Rule 42 of the MP Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a 'Sipahi' vide order-dated 19.8.1980 ­ Annexure P/1. He joined duties and finally vide order-dated 24.1.1997 ­ Annexure P/3, he was confirmed in service retrospectively with effect from 1.2.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period of service, no adverse remarks were communicated to him, there was nothing against him, he has an unblemished service record, but to his surprise, the impugned action was taken and vide order-dated 21.6.2002 ­ Annexure P/6, he has been retired under Rule 42 of the MP Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules'). Challenging the aforesaid compulsory retirement, petitioner preferred O.A. No. 1580/2002 before the State Administrative Tribunal and the matter was remanded back to the Department to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. When nothing was done, petitioner again approached this Court in WP(S) No.1412/2003, and the said writ petition was also disposed of vide Annexure P/10 on 15.10.2003, directing the respondents to take a decision on the claim made by the petitioner and the claim having been rejected vide Annexure P/11 on 31.1.2004, petitioner is again before this Court.

(3.) SMT . D.K. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer, refuted the aforesaid and invites my attention to the material available on record, and submits that for compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule 42 of the CCA Rules, his entire service record is taken note of and emphasis is made on the last five years record of the employee. Referring to the action taken against the petitioner, it is stated that the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement was placed before the appropriate Scrutiny Committee, which evaluated the claim of the petitioner in its totality and found that during the last five years, the service record of the petitioner was not upto the mark. It was found that the petitioner was negligent towards performance of his duties; he had disobeyed the orders of superior authorities; he had indulged in acts of insubordination and had even had a fight with the superior authorities; there were entries with regard to his integrity being doubtful; and, as the overall five years' record of the petitioner was found to be unsuitable and it was indicated that he is not fit for promotion, it is stated that the decision was taken based on the report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee and in doing so, as no error has been committed, learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for dismissal of the writ petition.