S C TANTIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by order dated 6-1-2000, by which he has been compulsorily retired from service while working as a Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources department has filed this petition before this Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer and was thereafter promoted as executive Engineer on 12-6-1979. He was again promoted on 9-7-1993 as a Superintending Engineer. On 22-12-1997, after a lokayukta enquiry, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and several others before the competent Criminal court pursuant to which he was suspended vide order dated 311-1998. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 9-8-1999 in respect of certain charges relating alleged lapses in the performance of his duties. While the aforesaid criminal case as well as the departmental enquiry was pending, the petitioners case was considered by a screening Committee constituted for the purposes of scrutinizing all case for compulsory retirement under F. R. 56 (3)of M. P. Fundamental Rules and en masse orders of compulsory retirement were issued which were challenged before the m. P. State Administrative Tribunal by several persons successfully and the cases were directed to be rescrutinised by a review Screening Committee. The petitioners case was also rescrutinised and by the impugned order dated 6-1-2000 the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner had an excellent service record and was never served with any adverse entries. He has further submitted that the allegation on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed against him before the Criminal Court was apparently misconceived as the petitioner was not responsible for making any payments or deductions from the amounts to be paid to contractors which was in fact the duty of his subordinates. It is further submitted that apart from the charge sheet filed against the petitioner before the Criminal Court, a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner for the purpose of depriving him of his right to consideration for further promotion to the post of Chief Engineer for which he had become due in the year 1998. On instructions from the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the present petition the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry vide order dated 12-42002 and has been acquitted by the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 25-3-2006. In the circumstances, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was not based on any material on record and clearly indicated total non-application of mind on the part of the Screening Committee as well as the respondent-authorities and, therefore, as the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner, not being in public interest, was beyond the scope of F. R. 56 (3) and deserves to be set aside.