R D S CHAUHAM Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order Annexure A/1 dated 1st October, 1997 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and the order Annexure R/1 again passed by the respondents on 30th September, 1999 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and confirming the earlier order, petitioner has filed this petition. Initially application was filed under section 19 of the Administrative tribunals Act before the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior on 11-10-1999 and after winding up of the tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court.

(2.) PETITIONER was initially appointed as overseer (Sub-Engineer) in the respondents department vide order dated 1-1-1966, he joined service on 21st january, 1966. He was promoted vide order Annexure A/2 dated 17-8-1983. In the meanwhile on 14-1-1986 petitioner was sent on deputation to River Board, jhansi where he worked for 4 years between 14-1-1986 to 13-1-1990 and thereafter on completion of deputation was posted in January 1990 as Assistant geohydrologist, District Ground Water Service Unit, M. P. and was posted at bhind. It is the case of the petitioner that from the initial date of appointment he has never been communicated any adverse CR but vide order Annexure A/1 dated 1st October, 1997 on the ground that he has completed 25 years of service and his case has been scrutinized under Rule 42 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 he was compulsorily retired from service holding him to be a dead wood in the department, along with the petitioner 509 other employees were also compulsorily retired, most of the employees challenged the retirement by filing application before the State Administrative Tribunal and in the case of petitioner O. A. No. 1191/97 was filed, this application was decided by the State administrative Tribunal vide order Annexure A/6 on 22-4-1998 and finding the screening committee not to be properly constituted the order Annexure A/1 was quashed and petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefit and salary. This order of the tribunal was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 1411/98 before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein vide judgment and order dated 16-8-1999 Annexure A/7 the bench upheld the order of tribunal but granted liberty to the State Government to constitute a fresh screening committee in accordance to law to consider the case of employees as per circular dated 13-1-1997 Annexure A/5. Thereafter, case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the screening committee which met on 12 and 13th December, 1999 and finding the petitioner to be eligible for compulsory retirement, the impugned order was passed. Shri D. K. Katare, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the second screening committee which considered the case of the petitioner after order was passed in Writ Petition 1411/1998 and other cases particularly in Writ Petition 17-3/98 in the case of the present petitioner has not evaluated the entire service record of the petitioner and by arbitrary evaluating the service record made the recommendation. Taking me through the ACR folder, the manner in which the screening committee dealt with the matter Shri katare, emphasized that in holding the petitioner to be a dead wood by only evaluating part of his record respondents have committed grave error. It is stated by Shri Katare, that the criteria fixed for evaluating the case of employees by the screening committee was not consistent to the policy contained in Annexure A/5 dated 13-1-1997. By inviting my attention to the following judgments Shri katare, submits that the action taken in the matter is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. The judgments relied are : i) Baikuntha Nath Das and another vs. Chief District Medical Officer baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1020, II) State of Gujarat and another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999 (6) SLR 324, III) M. P. Electricity Board vs. Shree Baboo, (2002) 9 SCC 704, IV) Union of India and others vs. R. C. Mishra, (2003) 9 SCC 217.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid contention and by taking me through the criteria laid down by the Screening Committee and the procedure followed by the screening committee Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate emphasized that as petitioner has received four "ga" entries during his service, the screening committee has recommended for his compulsory retirement as petitioner was found to be a dead wood in the department. By producing the original proceedings of the screening committee and the CR folders of the petitioner Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate tried to justify the action of the respondents.