R.K.MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2002, the petitioner, an Executive Engineer of Public Health Engineering Department, has approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by way of filing the original application. On closer of the Tribunal, the original application came on transfer to this Court and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was made to compulsory retire under the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(2) in public interest by the order impugned. The petitioner was aged 58 years at the relevant time and would not have retired pre-maturely. In lieu of the notice of three months, the petitioner was given three months' salary. The contentions raised by the petitioner are that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 14th April, 1977, worked sincerely and honestly on account of which in the year 1995 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer. A special criminal case was registered against the petitioner and challan was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Sidhi where Criminal Case No.165/1992 was registered against the petitioner in which he was acquitted by the Court after fulfledged trial. However, without there being any rhyme or reason, all of sudden, an order of compulsory retirement was issued, therefore, he was required to approach the Tribunal by way of filing of aforesaid original application. Before the compulsory retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension because of registration of a criminal case against him by the Lokayukt under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, subsequently in the said criminal case also the petitioner is acquitted. It is contended by the petitioner that he was compulsory retired only on account of certain circulars where it was said that confidential reports of the persons are to be assessed by awarding marks and those who have received less than 2 marks in all, they will be compulsory retired.

(3.) The Tribunal entertained the original application of the petitioner, issued the notices to the respondents, who have filed the return contending that screening of the case of the petitioner was done and it was found that he has secured seven average and seven good remarks during his entire service. According to this, the total assessment of the petitioner was 36 marks and since average assessment of the petitioner was less than 2 marks, he was compulsory retired. It was further put forth that a penalty of withholding of increment was imposed on the petitioner and a recovery of loss caused to the State to the tune of Rs.18,777/- was imposed on him on 15.11.1996. On account of these reasons, the petitioner was found unfit to remain in the employment and was compulsory retired. By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has controverted such a stand taken by the respondents and has contended that at no point of time any penalty whatsoever was imposed on him. On the other hand the service record of the petitioner was unblemished on account of which he was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1995 only. He would not have become a deadwood, which was required to be chopped off in such unceremonial manner as was done by the impugned order. It was further put forth that by passing the order in the matter of assessment of ACRs on mathematical basis, the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal has already said that the circular so issued by the State Government was bad in law.