HIRDAYNARAYAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a Sub -Registrar, was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 24.11.95 passed by Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps under provisions of Rule 42(1) (b) of M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 after having completed 25 years continuous service. He assails this order in O.A.No. 99/96 before the State Administrative Tribunal on the ground that it was passed arbitrarily, in malaflde exercise of power and in disregard of his service record and the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject matter. It was also alleged that impugned order was not in public interest as it did not indicate that it was passed on the recommendation of the screening committee. It was further contended that the order passed by way of punishment on the basis of the pending departmental enquiries and without any consideration being accorded to his whole service record.

(2.) ALL this was resisted by the respondents by asserting that petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in public interest after his case was recommended by the screening committee. It was also submitted that the committee had not taken the pending departmental enquiries in regard and had considered the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions of law by looking at the petitioner's service record, more particularly the record of last five years as envisaged by government circular, dated 7.11.1985.

(3.) THE tribunal after appreciation of rival contentions and in the light of various judgments of the Supreme Court referred by the parties concluded that petitioner's order of compulsory retirement was passed in accordance with law and in public interest and did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.