UNION OF INDIA Vs. S S AHUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core issue raised in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution appertain to the validity of the order No. 25013/21/89- AIS(II) dated 7.1.93 communicated vide Memo of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, compulsorily retiring the respondent No. 1 from service in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The above order was first assailed by the Respondent No. 1. in Original Application No. 66 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' and the learned Tribunal by judgment and order dated 24.11.97 allowed the application and set aside the order dated 7.1.93. The legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 24.11.97 in Original Application No. 66 of 1993 of the Tribunal is the subject matter of this proceeding. The above proceeding before the Tribunal arose in the following circumstances.

(2.) By an order dated 7.1.93 passed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, the President in consultation with the Government of Nagaland compulsorily retired Shri S.S. Ahluwalia, hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent No.l', a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of State of Nagaland, in public interest. Along with the order a cheque for a sum to the approximate amount of his pay and allowances for the period of three months was also enclosed. The legitimacy of the order was thus challenged in the aforesaid proceedings as: illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) The Respondent No. 1 further questioned the propriety and legitimacy of the orders bearing No. PER-A/26/88--AIS (Pt) dated 7.1.93 and PCA-A/26/88-118-88/AIS/Pt dated 7.1.93 issued in the name of Chief Secretary to the Govt of Nagaland communicating the decision to hold enquiries under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The respondent in his petition contended that the authorities took a conscious decision to hold enquiry by way of a departmental proceeding against the respondent and instead of allowing the same to reach its logical conclusion, the respondent sought to side step and ever reach the departmental proceeding and knocked out the petitioner from service as a punitive measure. The petitioner who was one of the respondents before the tribunal along with others seriously contested the application and stated that the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was made bonafide in the public interest. The respondent also stoutly denied the allegation of the petitioner to the effect that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was punitive in nature. The present petitioner's contention was that the same was passed in conformity with law and in the public interest. After hearing the respective parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order of compulsory retirement dt. 7.1.93. The Tribunal found that the charges framed against the respondent officer in the criminal prosecution were initiated on the basis of the sanction. Referring to the sanction of the Union of India, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the charges, allegation of misconduct, namely disproportionate assets to his source of income and also prosecution regarding violation of Arms Act were the basis of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal accordingly held that though the order of retiring compulsorily apparently was innocuous in appearance, the said order was in fact passed as a punitory/retaliatory measure. The Tribunal held further that the impugned order was stigmatic in content. According to the learned Tribunal the Respondent/Appellants with a view to elude and side-step the lengthy process of holding enquiry, adopted short cut measure to eliminate the officer in the garb of an order of compulsory retirement. The above order of the learned Tribunal is thus challenged in this application under Article 226 as illegal, arbitrary and perverse.