KRISHNA KANT SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Krishna Kant Shukla, a Sub-Judge in the Bihar State Judicial Service, against the order of compulsory retirement under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 notified on 16th June 2009.

(2.) The learned Advocate Mr. Chandra Shekhar has appeared for the Petitioner. He has challenged the impugned Notification dated 16th June 2009 on three grounds. He has submitted that the compulsory retirement purportedly made under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), is punitive and is actually made in lieu of the disciplinary action. He has submitted that as indicated in the counter affidavit there were several allegations of lack of integrity against the writ Petitioner. In that case a disciplinary action ought to have been held against the Petitioner and if found guilty the Petitioner ought to have been dismissed from service. The Petitioner's service could not have been terminated unceremoniously under the garb of 'public interest' under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Code. He has next submitted that Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Code empowers the appointing authority to retire a Government servant before reaching the age of superannuation in 'public interest'. In the present case the impugned Notification does not indicate that the Petitioner was required to be retired from the service in 'public interest'. He has next contended that Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Code empowers the appointing authority to retire an employee in 'public interest' after giving him notice of three months. The appointing authority may, in lieu of notice, remit the pay and allowances for three months. The aforesaid requirement is mandatory. In case of breach of the said mandatory requirement, the order of retirement would stand vitiated. In the present case neither the Petitioner was given notice of retirement nor was he paid pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The impugned Notification dated 16th June 2009 is, therefore, vitiated. The Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential reliefs. In support of his submissions Mr. Chandra Shekhar has relied upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the matters of Rana Abhai Singh v. The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and Ors.,2006 3 PLJR(sc) 400 and of Hira Prasad Pandey v. The State of Bihar and Ors.,2008 4 BLJ 173. Mr. Chandra Shekhar has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 3 SCC 314.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General-1 Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the High Court. He has contested the petition. He has relied upon the counter affidavit made on behalf of the High Court. He has submitted that the matter was considered by the inspecting judge, the judges in the Standing Committee of the High Court and by the Full Court. After examining the entire service record of the Petitioner the decision to recommend the Petitioner's compulsory retirement in 'public interest' in exercise of power conferred by Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Code was taken. He has placed before us copy of the entire service record of the writ Petitioner. In support of his arguments, Mr. Lalit Kishore has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer and Anr., 1992 2 SCC 299 and of Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Committee of Management, 1996 8 SCC 595.