BAL KISHAN CHHAPARIYA Vs. HIGH COURT OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order passed by the competent authority vide Annexure P/1 dated 13.9.2004, compulsorily retiring the petitioner under Rule 42(1)(b) of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with Rule 56(2) of the MP Fundamental Rules; and, challenging the resolution of the Full Court dated 11.9.2004, recommending for compulsory retirement of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It is stated that the action is malafide and the petitioner has been dealt with in an arbitrary and unjustified manner.

(2.) PETITIONER was selected to the Lower Judicial Service in the State of MP and was appointed as a Civil Judge Class II, in the year 1983. He was promoted as Civil Judge Class I and became a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the year 1996. After 13 years of service, he was Bal Kishan Chhapariya Vs. High Court of MP and another. promoted on the post of District Judge, in the Higher Judicial Service and was posted as Additional District Judge, in Sheopurkala, District Morena on 9.7.1997. However, he was kept on probation, he was granted extension of two occasions and finally he was not confirmed on the said post and was revered back to his substantive post of Civil Judge Class I. While working as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, it is stated that the Portfolio Judge, Hon'ble Justice Tej Shankar, visited Sheopurkala and made some adverse entry in his service record, with regard to the complaints made against him. Contending that the complaint made by the Portfolio Judge, in May 1998, could not be the subject matter of confidential report for the year ending 31.3.1998 and further contending that he has an unblemished service record and the action is taken against him in an arbitrary manner, challenge is made to the impugned action.

(3.) IT is stated that the power of compulsory retirement has been arbitrarily used against the petitioner, it is not a bonafide exercise of power and, therefore, interference is sought for. A detailed written argument is filed to contend that the claim of the petitioner has not been Bal Kishan Chhapariya Vs. High Court of MP and another. properly considered and action is taken to compulsorily retire him on the basis of remarks which cannot be said to be substantial enough for compulsorily retiring him.