SURESH CHAND PANDYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was at the relevant time working as Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources Department in the State of madhya Pradesh, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 6-1-2000 whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from Government service under sub rule (3) of Rule 56 of M. P. Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') after giving him three months' pay in lieu of notice.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that he was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the year 1970 in the Water Resources Department and was thereafter promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 1978. Vide order dated 13-10-1997 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer with retrospective effect from 23-12-1993. Thereafter the petitioner's case was scrutinized under F. R. 56 (3)of M. P. Fundamental Rules and the impugned order dated 6-1-2000 was issued compulsorily retiring the petitioner from Government service.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's service record was throughout good which is evident from the fact that he was awarded three promotions in the year 1970, 1978 and 1997 and, therefore, the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been issued with an oblique motive as certain juniors have been retained to give them benefit by removing the petitioner from service who was an impediment to their interest. It is further submitted that the impugned order is not in public interest as envisaged by F. R. 56 and is, therefore, arbitrary, illegal and mala fide as other persons similarly situated as the petitioner have been retained. The petitioner further submits that though departmental enquiries were initiated against the petitioner in the year 1999 in respect of alleged misconducts relating to the period prior to 1997, the said departmental enquiries could not be made the basis for issuing the impugned order of compulsory retirement as the petitioner was subsequently promoted in the year 1997 and as the pendency of the departmental enquiries could not have been made the basis for issuance of the impugned order without awaiting their conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during arguments, also stated that in the first departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, he was exonerated on 18-6-1991, in the second departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, he was exonerated on 17-9-2003 and the third departmental enquiry, wherein penalty of reduction in pension by 50% was imposed upon the petitioner, has been quashed vide order dated 7-7-2006 passed by Indore Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 877/2006 (s ).