ANIL KUMAR MASIH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 5th September, passed by the competent authority compulsorily retiring the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 42(1) (B) of the M.P. Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1976 read with Fundamental Rules 56(2)(A), the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was selected by the Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Civil Judge Class -II in May, 1981 and was appointed on 03 -11 -1981 and after appointment was posted as Additional Judge to the court of First Civil Judge, Class - II, Durg vide order Annexure P -1 dated 03 -11 -1981. He was transferred to various places and was promoted as Civil Judge Class -I in the year 1989. Thereafter, he became Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1993 and was sent on deputation as a Deputy Welfare Commissioner before the Bhopal Gas Victims Welfare and Relief Commission. Subsequently he was repatriated to his parent department and was promoted to the Higher Judicial Service in the year 1996. He was initially made Additional District & Sessions Judge at Shakti, District Bilaspur and at the relevant time when the impugned action was taken, he was working as Special Judge, Dewas. Inter alia contending that he has unblemished service record, the material available against him was not so adverse, so as to declare him as a dead wood and by contending that his service record has not been properly scrutinized and the impugned action is taken in an illegal manner, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) RESPONDENT no.2 represented by Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior Counsel refuted the aforesaid and invited out attention to the service profile of the petitioner as indicated in Annexure R -2.3 and argued that the service record of the petitioner was not so unblemished or good as canvassed by the petitioner. It was found to be tainted with various adverse entires and reports of inquiry which reflected on his conduct and even the Portfolio Judge in his report Annexure R -2 -2 has made certain adverse entry with regard to conduct of the petitioner. By referring to over all service performance of the petitioner and the reports submitted by two Portfolio Judges which were adverse to the petitioner, Shri Bhave tried to emphasize that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner is taken after meticulously scrutinizing the entire service record and as the Full Court in its meeting held on 23 -08 -2008 accepted the recommendation of the Administrative Committee, which is based on due scrutiny of the entire service record of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the absence of any exonerating circumstances being made out, no case is made out for interference.