PRITHVIRAJ BAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called into question the order of his compulsory retirement dated 21.5.96 passed by respondent -3 which reads as under: -

(2.) THE petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the material relied by the competent authority to retire him in public interest was never communicated to him and as such the order is vitiated. He also attributes bias to the authorities directing his compulsory retirement besides questioning the same on the ground that neither any enquiry was held nor he was provided an opportunity to defend himself.

(3.) IN the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that petitioner had earned adverse remarks for number of years in the course of his service which were communicated to him. The competent authority, it is further stated decided to retire him in public interest under Fundamental Rule -56 and Rule -48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 after considering the entire service record. Mr. Bhardwaj appearing for the petitioner argued that the order of pre -mature retirement casts a stigma and therefore, could be passed only after holding the inquiry. Since no inquiry was held it is argued, the order is liable to be quashed. He also pointed out that the order has been founded on the adverse remarks against which the petitioner has made representation which is yet to be decided. Such adverse remarks, therefore, could not be relied to decide whether the retirement of the petitioner is in public interest or not. Mr. Slathia on the other hand submitted that it is not the solitary adverse remarks, but the entire service record of the petitioner which had been considered by the competent authority before deciding to retire him from service. He also argued that order of compulsory retirement could be founded upon even upon the uncommunicated adverse remarks and, therefore, it was not necessary to decide the representation.