MD ALI SAIKIA Vs. MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Md. Ali Saikia has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.1.97 whereunder he has been compulsorily retired from the service of Meghalaya State Electricity Board, and also for quashing the order dated 28.1.97 by which the Assistant Executive Engineer, Umtru Maintenance Sub-Division of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board has been requested to take over the charge from the petitioner before 1.2.97 pursuant to the said order of compulsory retirement.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was initially appointed as work- charge employee under the Assam State Electricity Board on 27. 11.61. His services were regularised in the post of Engineer Subordinate -Grade-Ill in the year 1971 by the Assam State Electricity Board. After the bifurcation of the State of Meghalaya from the State of Assam, the Meghalaya State Electricity Board was constituted and the petitioner was retained in the service of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board. By order dated 4.11.96, the petitioner was posted at the Byrnihat Guest House No. 4. While he was so posted at Byrnihat, he received an order dated 2.1.97 issued by the Secretary, Meghalaya State Electricity Board placing him under suspension with effect from 1.1.97. But thereafter by an order dated 15.1.97, the aforesaid suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was reinstated in the service with immediate effect. But by the impugned order dated 24.1.97 issued "by" the Secretary, Meghalaya State Electricity Board, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board on his attaining the age of 50 Years and also on his completing more than 25 Years of continuous service in the Board with effect from 1.2.97. In the said impugned order, it was further stipulated that in lieu of the statutory notice of three months, the petitioner was entitled to draw three months, pay and allowance. The said impugned order dated 24.1.97 was followed up by order dated 28.1.97 issued by the Executive Engineer, Umiam Maintenance Division, M.S.E.B., Barapani to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Umtru Maintenance Sub-Division, M.S.E.B., Byrnihat, requesting him to make arrangement to take over the charge from the petitioner before 1.2.97.

(3.) At the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Diganta Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sequence of events leading to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, i.e. his suspension by order dated 2.1.97, his reinstatement by order dated 15.1.97 and his compulsory retirement by the impugned order dated 24.1.97 would show that the entire object was to get rid of the service of the petitioner by a short-cut method without following the procedure prescribed by the Rules for disciplinary proceeding in contemplation of which the petitioner was initially suspended from service. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances on which the prtitioner was compulsorily retired, the order of compulsory retirement was vitiated by malafied and is liable to be quashed. Mr. Das further contended that to the knowledge of the petitioner he had a good service record and mo adverse entry in the ACRs of the petitioner was ever communicated to him and that the Review Committee appears to have taken into account the uncommunicated adverse entry, if any, in the ACRs of the petitioner and recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Such recommendation of the Review Committee on the basis of the adverse entries in the ACRs of the petitioner which have not been communicated to him amount to violation of the principle of natural justice, and the impugned order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary and is liable to be quashed . Mr. Das further contended that l:he impugned order of compulsory retirement has not been passed in the public interest and is contrary to the law on Compulsory retirement laid down by the Apex Court in several cases. He cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Baikuntha Nath Das - Vs- Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299, S. Ramchandra Raju -Vs- State of Orissa, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 424, Sukhdeo Vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and another, 1996 (2) SLJ 3, and State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Das, AIR 1996 SC 2436, in support of his aforesaid contentions.