LAKSHMI NARAYAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"). Petitioner at the relevant time served as a Field Officer in the Garkha Branch of the Bank. He is aggrieved by the order of the Administrator of the Bank communicated by the Deputy Managing Director (Administration) under Memo No. 19151 dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6, whereunder petitioner has been directed to compulsory retire from service of the Bank with effect from 31.3.2000 in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which, inter alia, empower the employer to compulsory retire the employee in public interest. It is evident from perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6 that Bank is satisfied that it is in public interest to compulsory retire the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that the impugned order although purported to have been passed in public interest under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Service Code but in fact the same has been passed by way of punishment. In this connection he has referred to the proceedings of the Establishment Committee of the Bank dated 7.8.1999, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, whereunder the Establishment Committee of the Bank resolved to compulsory retire those employees of the Bank who failed to recover even 10 per cent of the loan recovery target given to them. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that perusal of the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 7.8.1999, Annexure-A would indicate that decision to compulsory retire those who could not achieve even 10% of the loan recovery target given to them was taken in public interest. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Pandey vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr., 2006 1 PLJR 617 paragraph 25 to submit that compulsory retirement within the meaning of sub-rule (b)(ii) of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code require the employer while compulsorily retiring an employee from service to form an opinion in public interest. With reference to the judgment in the case of Ram Gopal Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case the resolution of the Establishment Committee of the Bank dated 7.8.1999, Annexure-A resolving to compulsory retire petitioner and other who did not attain even 10 per cent of the loan recovery target has not been taken in public interest and for failure of the appointing authority to record satisfaction about the public interest vitiates not only the resolution of the Establishment Committee but also the impugned order dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6 as there is nothing on record to buttress the contents of the impugned order that the Bank or its Administrator was satisfied that it is in public interest to compulsory retire the petitioner. Learned counsel with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma vs. State of Bihar and Another, 1990 2 PLJR(SC) 60, submitted that the court before which the order of compulsory retirement is challenged can always delve into the basis of the order to ascertain its true character including the satisfaction of the appointing authority.

(2.) Learned counsel further submitted that from the counter affidavit, paragraph-10 itself it will appear that in view of the large scale advancement of bad loans during the year 1985-88 the Bank had taken a policy decision in 1985-88 to transfer its officers to such places where they were posted earlier so that they are able to identify the loanees and recover the bad loans. Petitioner was never posted where he had made recommendation for grant of loan. Later, a proceeding was drawn against him for not making the required recovery contrary to the direction given to him under Letter No. 6728 dated 4.9.1996 but the Enquiry Officer having noticed the fact that petitioner was never given posting as per his choice to recover the loan amount recommended his exoneration from the charge of being Lukewarm towards the drive to recover the bad loans. In this connection, the Enquiry Officer recorded a specific finding in the Enquiry Report dated 12.10.1998, Annexure-9 that petitioner was never posted in the Garkha Branch and thus he had no opportunity to identify the defaulter loanees and recommended to drop the proceeding. In the light of the report of the Enquiry Officer, Annexure-9 petitioner was exonerated from the proceeding under orders dated 20.11.1998, Annexure-4 by administering warning. With reference to the aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer and the order administering warning it is submitted that the impugned order is nothing but punishment for failure to recover loan less than 10% of the target fixed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the resolution of the Establishment Committee dated 7.8.1999, Annexure-A it would further appear that thereunder the Bank had taken decision to compulsory retire others including Ajit Kumar Sinha who challenged his compulsory retirement in C.W.J.C. No. 7615 of 2000 which was allowed under orders dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-10 and the order of compulsory retirement dated 29.3.2000 passed in the case of Ajit Kumar Sinha was quashed. It is further submitted that the L.P.A. filed against the order dated 29.9.2000 has also been dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner being similar to that of Ajit Kumar Sinha, this writ petition be also disposed of exactly in the same terms which is contained in order dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-10.