PURUSHOTTAM BHATT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the order dtd. 13/9/2004 (Annexure-P-1) whereby, he has been compulsorily retired.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dtd. 28/7/1979 as Civil Judge Class-II. His services were later-on confirmed and he was given promotion from time to time to next higher posts. Vide order dtd. 13/8/1998 the petitioner was confirmed as District Judge with effect from 4/10/1997. According to petitioner, his entire service career remained unblemished. His service record remained excellent. Most of the ACRs were very good or excellent barring few which were also not adverse but only of advisory in nature. The petitioner was served with the impugned order dtd. 20/9/2004 in exercise of powers under Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 (hereinafter as referred as "the Rules of 1976), whereby, he has been compulsorily retired in public interest.

(3.) Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not in public interest, the same is contrary to the provisions of law. The Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the relevant past five years commencing from 1999-2000 to 2003-04 do not contain iota of adverse material. Not even a single departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner was good performer and he cannot be termed as dead-wood. Since the order impugned is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.