Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 495 (MP)

S. S. Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2001-07-12

A.K.MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2001
JUDGMENT Singh, C.J. (Oral) -- Through this writ petition, order of State Administrative Tribunal dated 16.5.2001 passed in O.A. No. 678 of 1999 has been challenged. The petitioner has been retired compulsorily from the post of Assistant Gr. I by order dated 7.4.1999 by Principal Secretary, Government of M.P. under Fundamental Rule 56(2) in public interest on the recommendation of the Screening Committee. The petitioner joined service as Lower Division Clerk pursuant to order dated 27.6.1964. He became permanent by order dated 25.10.1994. Vide order dated 17.12.1997, he was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and was also communicated adverse remarks in March, 1997. After his representation dated 5.11.1997, partial amendment was made in the Annual Confidential Report, conveyed by letter dated 5.11.1997. The grievance of petitioner is that order of compulsory retirement has been issued by incompetent authority. It has not been in accordance with criteria laid down by Government of Madhya Pradesh vide memo dated 13.1.1995. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in 1976. Again he was promoted to the post of Assistant Gr. I on 10.10.1983 and made permanent against the said post in 1994. The Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1994-1996 were not communicated to the petitioner. Similarly, the Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1996-1999 were not placed before the Screening Committee. Though the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner were good, the Screening Committee did not scrutinize the case properly before passing order nor was he given opportunity of hearing. It is also stated that before issuing the order, work and conduct of the petitioner was not examined. . Respondents state that the order had been passed by the competent authority. in public interest, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee which examined the case on the basis of the entire service record. Therefore, it is stated that no case for interference with the order is called for. The State Administrative Tribunal examined the case of petitioner on the basis of service record. It found that Screening Committee examined the service record of petitioner including annual confidential reports. The Screening Committee consisted of Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Additional Secretary, Forest Department and Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, GAD. The State Administrative Tribunal examined the case of petitioner on the basis of service record. It found that Screening Committee examined the service record of petitioner including annual confidential reports. The Screening Committee consisted of Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Additional Secretary, Forest Department and Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, GAD. Not only the case of petitioner but cases of other persons who had completed 55 years of age or 25 years of service were examined on the basis of three criteria, nemely, honesty, physical fitness, evaluation and working capacity. These qualities were determined on the basis of entire service record of the petitioner including the annual confidential reports. The State Administrative Tribunal also found from paragraph 4 of the report of the Screening Committee that ACRs from 1965 to 1997 were seen. The original ACRs were also produced before the State Administrative Tribunal. Besides punishment of stoppage of one increment awarded on 17.6.1996, adverse entries recorded in the ACRs of the petitioner were also examined. It was after examination of the records that the case of petitioner was recommended for compulsory retirement on which the impugned order has been passed. The State Administrative Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it is not a case where the Screening Committee has recommended the case of petitioner without material and the impugned order has been passed on the basis of evidence and there is no case for mala fides. With respect to competence of Principal Secretary, it is held that the Principal Secretary is Head of the Department, therefore, competent to issue the order. There is no order which could show that in this case the order could be passed by the Chief Secretary. Other contentions raised by the petitioner have also been rejected by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for petitioner was heard and matter considered. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has examined the matter quite seriously and comprehensively before rejecting the case of the petitioner. Service records of petitioner have also been examined to see whether impugned order has been passed taking into consideration all relevant factors, in public interest and on the basis of evidence. It is also found that order is not result of mala fide since there is no basis for it. By now, circumstances when Government servant can be retired compulsorily, have been considered by the Apex Court in catena of cases. It is also found that order is not result of mala fide since there is no basis for it. By now, circumstances when Government servant can be retired compulsorily, have been considered by the Apex Court in catena of cases. Some of them are Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada ((1992) 2 see 299), Union of India v. P.P. Seth (1994 see (L & S) 1952), S.S. Marwah v. Union of India and others (1994 see (L & S) 1077), Union of India v. Badri Nath Vishwakarma (1994) see 1015 and I.K. Mishra v. Union of India and others ((1997) 6 see 228). The latest decision on this question is reported in State of Gujarai v. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001 AIR SCW 862). Principles governing compulsory retirement have been pointed out. Having examined the case of petitioner in the context of these principles, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference. His entire service record was examined in the context of the criteria laid down by the Screening Committee. The petitioner could not qualify therefore, his case has been found fit for compulsory retirement. It is not punitive in nature. It has been passed in public interest since he has not been found useful for public service. Principles of natural justice have no place when the case of an employee is examined for compulsory retirement nor will non-communication of adverse remarks affect it. The petitioner has not furnished facts for alleging mala fides nor can they be spelled out from the available material. There is no want of evidence nor the order is arbitrary. It does not lack competence, therefore submissions raised by the petitioner are untenable. Result of aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.