S.S. GARGA Vs. THE COAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEREAS the President is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules the President hereby give notice to Sri S. S. Garga, holder in the permanent post of Secretary to the Coal Controller, that he having already attained the age of 50 years on 11 -11 -68 shall retire from service from the date of expiry of three months computed from the date of the service of this notice on him.S.B. Lal,Joint Secretary of the Government of India.

(2.) IN the writ petition to this Court the petitioner primarily made out two grounds for his challenge to the order. In the first place, setting out in great details the invaluable service he had rendered to the different authorities he had served, which was not only appreciated but was commended from time to time, he has disputed the existence of the requisite satisfaction and the existence of any reason whatsoever which can support an order under Fundamental Rule 56(j). According to the petitioner the order is arbitrary, illegal and based on extraneous consideration. Secondly, setting out certain allegations of malice as against respondent No. 4 Sri P. K. Ghose, the Coal Controller, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order as mala fide being procured at the instance of Sri P. K. Ghose. This part of petitioner's challenge has, however, been given up at the time of hearing of the rule. Apart from these two principle challenges the petitioner had raised an additional ground being ground No. 12 of the writ petition to the effect that the respondents could not have exercised jurisdiction under Fundamental Rule 56(j) until the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years. Much importance to this ground has been given by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing.

(3.) IN neither of these affidavits the respondents have disclosed any ground or reason which led to the decision to pass the impugned order directing petitioner's compulsory retirement though there has been a denial of petitioner's claim that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal or based on any irrelevant consideration. Petitioner filed an affidavit in reply to these two affidavits disclosing therein certain documents to indicate that his appointment as a Secretary to the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Commissioner was an appointment to a post under a statutory body, viz., the Labour Welfare Fund created under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act of 1947 which was not an appointment under the Government. To meet these documents the respondents were given another opportunity to file a supplementary affidavit in opposition which has been filed. They have disclosed some documents to counter the documents disclosed by the petitioner in his affidavit in reply. That apart, in this supplementary affidavit, the respondents have reiterated their broad denial of the allegation to the effect that the impugned order had been passed mechanically or without any grounds. It has further been stated: In passing the order under Clause 56(j) the procedure for passing such order was duly followed. According to the procedure the matter was placed before the Review Committee along with other members of the service and ultimately the recommendations were placed before the Minister to approve the same. Thereafter the order annexure T was made as the President was of the opinion that the compulsory retirement of Sri Garga was in public interest. As the petitioner has not pressed the ground of malice I consider it unnecessary to refer to the relevant pleadings of the parties on that issue.