SAROJ KUMAR DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application had been preferred challenging a memorandum dated 16th July, 2009 issued by the respondent no.6 and the reports of the Review Committee and the Representation Committee and the memorandum dated 23rd March, 2010 through which it was inter alia communicated to the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions contained in Fundamental Rule (hereinafter referred as the FR) 56 (j), his case was reviewed by the Review Committee and he was not found fit for retention in service and accordingly he was prematurely retired from service with effect from 01.08.2009 (FN) by the appropriate authority and that the petitioner's representation dated 10th December, 2009 against his premature retirement order dated 16th July, 2009 was considered by the Representation Committee and the said Committee came to a conclusion that there is no merit in the representation submitted by the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner had ,inter alia,contended that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 15th March, 1982 and that thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 30th June, 1987 and to the post of Sub-Inspector on 30th March 1995 and to the post of Inspector with effect from 10th July, 2008 and that from such service records of the petitioner it is explicit that the petitioner's integrity was never doubtful and that his performance and discharge of service did not suffer from any ineffectiveness. Mr. Mahapatra had further argued that the memorandum dated 16th July, 2009 issued by the respondent no.6 was absolutely without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said respondent no.6 was not the Appointing Authority of the petitioner and that as such the power under FR 56 (j) could not have been exercised by the said respondent no.6. Mr. Mahapatra had further contended that under FR 56 (j) there has to be a formation of opinion and that such formation of opinion must be on the basis of the overall service record of the petitioner and that the respondents cannot pick out any particular instance from the entire service record of the petitioner for the purpose of formation of such opinion under FR 56 (j).

(3.) The respondents have entered appearance and have filed an affidavit-inopposition controverting the allegations made in the writ application and stating inter alia that the petitioner's representation / appeal against the order of premature retirement adopted by the Review Committee was considered by the Representation Committee and was rejected and that there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the Review Committee and Representation Committee. The respondents, however, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition had admitted the fact that the petitioner did avail three promotions. Mrs. Roy further submitted that the petitioner was ordered for premature retirement along with three months' pay and allowances and that having received the said amount the petitioner cannot challenge the order of premature retirement.