SUBHADRA BAI Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DURG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application was filed by the petitioner Vimal Kumar Shri vastava for quashing the order dated 7.12.1985 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Durg whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 42 (b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 the petitioner was directed to be compulsorily retired on completion of 25 years of service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and this writ petition is being pursued by his legal heirs.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the petition are that during the relevant time the petitioner was working as an officiating Uppar Division Clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Durg. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 17.8.1964, charge sheet was served on the employee and he submitted his reply to the charges on 29.1.1984. In the reply the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. After submission of the reply an Enquiry Officer was appointed and while the aforesaid enquiry was pending, by the impugned order dated 17.8.1984, the petitioner was directed to be compulsorily retired. According to the petitioner he was communicated of the adverse remark in the confidential report for the year 1982 -83 to 1983 -84 against which he had filed representation and it is his stand that his representation was pending, still the order of compulsory retirement was passed. It is the stand of the petitioner that in the confidential report of the years 1979 -80 to 1983 -84 his performance was held to be poor except for the year 1981 -82 for which his performance was recorded as catagory 'C' i.e. average. According to the petitioner the entry of poor remarks in his confidential reports are the subject matter of enquiry which was initiated against him.

(3.) THE stand of the respondents in the return is that the confidential report of the petitioner for the years 1979 -80 to 1983 -84 were adverse and the adverse remarks given by the District and Sessions Judge in the confidential report of the petitioner dated 31.3.1981 read as follows :