LAWS(P&H)-2001-9-145

CHANDER MOHAN TRIKHA SCIENTIST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 05, 2001
CHANDER MOHAN TRIKHA SCIENTIST-B(RETD ) Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for quashing order dated 1.4.1999, (Annexure P.4) passed by Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dismissing the application filed by the petitioner against his premature retirement with effect from 31.5.1991.

(2.) The facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are that after qualifying his M.Sc. Engineering (Electronics) in 1st Division from the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh and also qualifying Diploma from Madras Institute of Technology (Electronics) in the year 1968, the petitioner joined as Senior Scientist Assistant in Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory, Chandigarh on 19.7.1969. Thereafter, he worked on the post of Technical Officer in the Department of Electronics Testing Development Centre, Chandigarh from 19.4.1978 to 21.2.1980 and was appointed as Junior Scientific Officer in the Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory where he joined as such on 22.2.1980. He was promoted as Scientist 'B' with effect from 1.1.1986. He earned his promotion on account of his good/very good reports. However, he was compulsorily retired vide order dated 16.5.1991 with effect from 31.5.1991. The petitioner has claimed that during the entire period of his service he had never been conveyed any adverse report. It has also been explained that on 23.10.1990 he was conveyed remedial ACR for the year 1989. The remarks as recorded by the Assessor, the Reviewing Authority and the Accepting Authority read as under :-

(3.) Aggrieved by order dated 16.5.1991, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 763/HR of 1991 titled as Chander Mohan Trikha v. Union of India. The Tribunal vide its order dated 1.4.1999 dismissed the application on the principal ground that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the same can be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority. The Tribunal has referred to the proceedings of the Review Committee and concluded as under: