YADAV RAO BHELKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of an appropriate writ for quashment of Annexure A-3, by which he has been compulsorily retired under Rule 42 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with Fundamental Rule 56 (2 ).

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was appointed in the post of LDC in the office of the Registrar, Firms and Societies, on 6-9-1973. It is putforth in the petition that while he was working in the aforesaid post, the Registrar, Firms and Societies vide Annexure A-3, dated 7-2-2002 passed an order of compulsory retirement. It is asseverated that the impugned order is totally laconic as it is silent with regard to any kind of policy-decision by which the respondent has passed an order of compulsory retirement and only the mention of public interest does not subserve the purpose. It is urged that entire service record of the petitioner has to be properly perused but, on the contrary, a mechanical order has been passed on the bedrock that as the petitioner had completed 20 years of service he was asked to leave in public interest. A representation had been submitted vide Annexure A-1, but, as pleaded, the said representation has not been paid heed to. It is the case of the petitioner that he had never been proceeded against in a departmental proceeding and no adverse entry had ever been communicated to him. Quite apart from the above it is asserted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC on 30-4-1981 and further to the post of Assistant Grade-I in the year 1996 and. was allowed to draw higher payscale with effect from 9-9-1996. A copy of the Government policy enunciating the guidelines in relation to compulsory retirement has been brought on record. It is contended that when the petitioner has rendered unblemished service and has secured two promotions during his service tenure, there is no justification for passing an order of compulsory retirement.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the decision to retire the applicant compulsorily has been taken in terms of the recommendations of the Screening Committee which held its meeting on 24-10-2001. The said Committee was constituted in terms of guidelines as contained in G. A. D. Circular dated 22-8-2000 (Annexure A-2 ). The Screening Committee, as setforth, was constituted at the Head of Department level to consider the cases of Class III and two from Class IV employees who had either attained 50 years of age or had completed 20 years of service. The Screening Committee on consideration of the entire service record of the applicant found that in the last five years of service of the applicant no ACR reflected "good" and the applicant had been given adverse ACR of "gha" for the years 1978-79, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1988-89. It is also putforth that he was punished with the punishment of admonition in the year 1980-81. The Screening Committee also noted that in most of the orders the applicant was issued warning and if the overall review of the record is made it would be discernible that he had four ACRs wherein he had been awarded the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect as per the order dated 2-12-1992 and had been subjected to disciplinary action many a time. Taking into consideration the totality of factual scenario, the order had been passed in public interest. The recommendations of the Screening Committee have been brought on record as Annexure R-1. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Grade-I from the UDC four and half years back and the said promotion was on the basis of recommendation of the DPC which considered the claim of the petitioner for such promotion on the basis of confidential report of the preceding few years and that can not be a factor to totally ignore the career graph of the petitioner. In the return it has been stated that the assertion that the order of compulsory retirement is laconic and not speaking one, does not vitiate the same. With regard to non-communication of adverse entries, it is urged in the return that adjudging a person for the purpose of compulsory retirement, the non-communicated adverse entries can be pressed into service and looked into.