R.D. SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7772/2003, filed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(2.) THE facts very briefly are that the Appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department in the year 1971 and he was promoted as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 1985. On 23.5.2002 the screening committee considered the service record of the Appellant and found that during the entire service period of the Appellant, he had been given the grading of 'D' (adverse) for two periods, grading of 'D' (average) for six periods, grading of 'B' (good) for 11 periods and grading of 'A' (very good) for one period. The screening committee also found that two cases have been registered with the Lokayukta for enquiry in the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act in the year 1989 and 1999. The screening committee further found that punishments of withholding of increments had been imposed on the Appellant vide orders dated 31.7.1997 and 4.12.2001 and that a censure had also been recorded against the Appellant vide order dated 23.12.1998 in three different departmental proceedings and further that a charge -sheet had been issued in another departmental proceeding. On the basis of the aforesaid materials found in the service record of the Appellant, the screening committee took the view that the Appellant did not satisfy the criteria of 'good' and recommended for compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(ii). Pursuant to the recommendation, the State Government by order dated 10.7.2002 compulsory retired the Appellant in the public interest. Aggrieved the Appellant filed writ petition No. 7772/2003 but by the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 the learned Single Judge of this Court did not find any merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same.

(3.) MR . Sharma further submitted that two cases registered for enquiry with the Lokayukta in the year 1989 and 1999 could not be considered by the authorities as the allegations therein were yet to be established in an appropriate Court of law and in any case after the enquiry charge -sheet was filed in the respective Courts and two cases have ended in acquittal of the Appellant. He cited a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah,, 1999 (81) FLR 197 (SC) in which the Supreme Court has held that the opinion formed by the Review Committee that the Government officer was a person of doubtful integrity on the basis of the F.I.Rs. was not correct because the Government servant was still to be tried in the Court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the Court whether the Government servant was guilty of the criminal charges or not.