STATE OF M P Vs. M S WAKANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29-9-2001 passed by the M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, in O. A. No. 395/94.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was originally inducted in Government service in the year 1957 in the office of the I. G. Municipality and after abolition of the office of the I. G. Municipality, he was taken into service of the Collectorate, Ujjain as a Lower Division Clerk. He was posted as Lower Division Clerk in the Land Records and Settlement at Gwalior and thereafter was promoted to the post of Assistant. By order dated 4-3-94, the respondent was compulsorily retired under F. R. 56 (3 ). Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed O. A. No. 395/94 before the M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench. By the impugned order dated 29-9-2001, the Tribunal quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 4-3-94 after holding that the Screening Committee considered the ACRs of the respondent No. 1 only for last 5 years and had not considered the entire records of service contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada AIR1992 SC 1020 , JT1992 (2 )SC 1 , (1992 )I LLJ784 SC , 1992 (1 )SCALE428 , (1992 )2 SCC299 , [1992 ]1 SCR836 , 1992 (1 )SLJ177 (SC ), (1992 )2 UPLBEC816. In the said order dated 29-9-2001, the Tribunal also directed the authorities to grant consequential reliefs to the respondent.

(3.) MRS. Ami Prabal, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, in Para 32 of the judgment as reported in AIR, the Supreme Court has summed up the principles in a case where an order of compulsory retirement is challenged before the Court, and it will be clear from the said Para 32 of the judgment that interference with the order of compulsory retirement will be permissible only when the Court is satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide, or (b) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be a perverse order. She submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr. (supra), and has interfered with the order of compulsory retirement only on the ground that the entire service record of the respondent No. 1 has not been considered and instead only 5 years ACRs of the respondent No. 1 have been considered. She further submitted that in the present case, the ACRs of the respondent No. 1 would show that during the period from 30-9-1966 to 31-3-1994, the respondent No. 1 was graded 7 kha (good), 17 ga (average) and 2 gha (below average ). She further submitted that several adverse remarks have also been entered in the ACRs of the respondent No. 1 and in the last ACR of the respondent, an adverse remark has been entered that such type of employee, who has no knowledge about the service rules and official procedures and does not take interest in learning, should not be retained in Government service. She submitted that even if the entire service record of the respondent was considered by the Screening Committee, then Screening Committee would have come to the same conclusion that the respondent should be compulsory retired under FR 56 (3) in the public interest.