RAM NATH RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.9.1996 by which he has been ordered to be prematurely retired from the service of the respondents, five years earlier than his actual date of superannuation. A copy of the impugned order has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the services of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the CISF') in the year 1968 and according to him he had un blemished career record throughout and at no point of time of his career he was accorded any adverse entry in his service record. The petitioner claims to have very serious in his duties, which he was doing honestly and sincerely and he was awarded on different occasions, several commendation certificates. In the year 1991, the petitioner was promoted by the President of India on the post of Assistant Commandant vide Notification dated 18.3.1991. Consequent to his promotion in the year 1991, the petitioner was transferred to CISF Unit in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner alleged that immediately upon his transfer he started facing numerious hurdles in his performance of duties and he received numerous threatening calls and consequent upon this, the petitioner's group Commandant was pleased to sanction a personal body guard to him. In the year 1992, the petitioner received a letter informing him that a departmental proceeding was proposed to be initiated against him on receipt of anonymous complaint and the petitioner was served with the Article of Charges by letter dated 12.11.1992. Pursuant to framing of charges, an enquiry committee was constituted which held the enquiry and before the enquiry committee evidence was led to prove the charges. However, the enquiry committee after due deliberation came to a finding exonerating the petitioner of all the charges, inasmuch as all the charges were found to be not established and the enquiry committee gave its clear finding on all the charges exoneration the petitioner. After submission of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 10.1.1996 calling upon him to file representation as the Disciplinary Authority will take suitable decision after considering the report. The petitioner was thereafter surprised to receive the letter dated 5.9.1996 from the respondents stating therein, inter alia, that the Disciplinary Authority was proposing to disagree with the enquiry committee and the petitioner was directed to file representation against the proposal to disagree with the enquiry report. A copy of the said notice dated 5.9.1996 has been annexed as Annexure 8 to this writ petition. Meanwhile, by the impugned that his case was reviewed and the respondents have taken a decision to prematurely retire the petitioner from his service. A copy of the impugned letter is Annexure 10 to this writ petition.

(3.) MR . A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order passed by the respondent as illegal, wholly arbitrary and against all canons of justice. According to him the impugned order of premature retirement of the petitioner is mala fide, inasmuch as it is based on extraneous and irrelevant consideration and there is absence of any public interest. Learned Counsel then submitted that un disputedly the petitioner was promoted in the year 1991 because of his good performance in past and even if there be any adverse remark/entry in the service record for the period prior to 1991, that cannot be a ground for taking a decision for pre mature retirement. Learned Counsel heavily put reliance on the decisions in the cases of Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Ors. : (1980)IILLJ459SC , Baidynath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa : [1989]3SCR803 and J.D. Shhvastava v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1984 (1) SLR 364. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned Standing Counsel Central Government appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned order by making submissions of those facts and law which have been stated in the counter affidavit.