BHEEMRAO BAGDE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition calls in question the legality and validity of the order dtd. 18/12/2003, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest exercising the power under Rule 42(1)(b) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

(2.) The aforesaid order has been assailed interalia on the ground that the same has been passed without summoning and considering petitioner's entire service record. The stand of the petitioner is that his case was not placed before the duly constituted screening committee and as such the procedure prescribed under the circulars dtd. 22/8/2000 and 20/3/2003 has not been followed, under the circumstances his compulsory retirement in public interest is wholly unjustifiable. It is further argued that he has been retired as a punishment purely on the basis of a single penalty of reversion. Further no approval was sought from the State Government not notice as required under Rule 56 or 3 months salary as provided under Rule 42 of Pension Rules was paid.

(3.) Per contra, the stand of respondents is that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law after considering the entire service record of the petitioner. It is submitted that in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the circular dtd. 22/8/2000 and 20/3/2003, a screening committee was constituted for scrutiny of the service record of Class III and Class IV employees working in the Directorate of Training. The committee first met on 30/6/2002 and considered the case of petitioner as well as other employees who had completed 50 years of age or 20 years of service as on 1/4/2002. The committee after assessment of the entire service record of petitioner with special emphasis on the CR of the last five years, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service. The committee found that the over all assessment of the petitioner was below average. Further vide order dtd. 27/1/2003 he was reverted from the post of Accountant to the post of Assistant Grade III on account of financial irregularities and dereliction in performance of duties. The committee also found that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 7/4/2003. It is contended that the recommendation of the screening committee was placed before the competent authority, i.e., Director, Training, who agreed with the same and issued the impugned order.