S C VAISH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, an I. A. S. Officer in Super Time Scale, feels aggrieved by the order of his compulsory retirement dated 9th April, 1984 purpurting to be under rule 16 (3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the same in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed in the I. A. S. grade in the year 1955 and was promoted in the Senior Time Scale in November, 1961. He was however, reverted to the junior Scale of I. A. S. in August, 1962. Thereafter, the petitioner was again promoted and subsequently confirmed in the Senior Scale w. e. f. 10-8-1963. He was, in due course, promoted to the Selection Grade on 1-10-1976 by order dated 16-5-1977 (Annexure 'r' ). The petitioner was further promoted to the Super Time Scale of I. A. S. with effect from 1-7-1980. This promotion was admittedly given after the joint Screening Committee in its meeting dated 9-4-1980 found the petitioner fit for the promotion. After his promotion to the Super Time Scale, the petitioner was posted to work as a commissioner for Departmental Enquiries in M. P. Vigilance Commission. After working for about 2 years on the aforesaid post, he was appointed as the Managing director of M. P. State Industries Corporation w. e. f. 3-3-1983 from where he was retired compulsorily by the impugned order.

(3.) THE impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is not passed in public interest and is otherwise arbitrary and unjustified violating not only the Rules but also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petition has been opposed by the respondent Union of India and respondent State of Madhya pradesh by filing their separate returns. The impugned order is said to have been passed by the respondent Union of India in consultation with the respondent State of Madhya pradesh. According to the respondent Union of India the order has been passed in public interest and in accordance with the Rule and is neither dismissal nor removal from service. It is also submitted that before retiring the petitioner a Review Committee presided over by the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh considered the service record of the petitioner and submitted its recommendations to the State government. The State Government forwarded the representation to the Central government with its own recommendations. It is the Central Government which takes the final decision whether the officer should be retained in service or should be retired from service in public interest. The respondent Central Government claims, that "the existence of public interest fore retiring a member of an All India Service is a matter solely for the satisfaction of the Central Govt, and for that purpose the Central government takes into account an over all assessment of the work and performance of the officers on the basis of available material. " (para 4 ). From the statement it appears that it is the case of the Central Government that the decision whether the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was in public interest is their exclusive concern and that appears to be the reason why the respondent Central Government have not produced any material whatsoever to enable this Court to ascertain if their conclusion was justified. It also appears to be their case that, the petitioner was retired from service in public interest, not because of any complaint against him but was retired from service on the basis of certain adverse remarks recorded in his character rolls after his promotion to the Super Time Scale of I. A. S. (para 17 ). It, therefore, appears that the respondent Central Government has not considered the petitioner's character rolls prior to his promotion to the Super Time Scale of I. A. S. but has reached the conclusion on the basis of his record after his promotion on 1-7-1980.