Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 618 (MP)

Syed Mehadi Hassan v. State of M. P.

2002-07-03

RAJENDRA MENON

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER by this petition has challenged the action of the respondents in compulsorily retiring him vide Annexure P-1. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been compulsorily retired without giving him opportunity of hearing and without conducting any enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 2. ) IT is also the case of petitioner that he has an unblemished service record. In his entire period, no departmental enquiry was conducted against him, and therefore, the order of compulsory retirement is illegal. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS have filed return and have submitted that as per the provision of Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968, a Municipal employee can be retired after giving three months in case he has attained the age of 55 years or on completion of 25 years of service. ( 4. ) IT is the case of the respondents that case of petitioner was considered under the aforesaid rule along with many other persons. The entire service record of the petitioner was placed before the Council and on the recommendation of the Council it was found that the petitioner can be retired. It is submitted that the action has been taken under the aforesaid rule after considering the entire service record of the petitioner, and therefore, in view of the law relating to compulsory retirement, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. ( 5. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 6. ) THE original records including the service book of the petitioner have been perused. ( 7. ) IT is seen that a decision was taken by the Council to consider the cases of employees who have completed 25 years of service and 55 years of age for the purpose of retaining them in service. Petitioners case was also con sidered and the matter was placed before the Council which after considering the service record resolved to retire him compulsorily and accordingly after giving him due notice in accordance with the rules, the impugned order has been passed. ( 8. ) THE service record of the petitioner is not as unblemished as claimed by the petitioner. ( 8. ) THE service record of the petitioner is not as unblemished as claimed by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has not been punished with any departmental enquiry action, the service record indicates that the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion on many occasions. He was warned for insubordination. He was found drunken while on duty and specific entry has been made in the service record with regard to the fact that he has come to the office in a drunken state. The entire service record has been considered by the Council before taking action in the instant case. ( 9. ) THE scope of judicial review in matters of compulsory retirement now stands concluded by series of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in various cases. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr. , (1992) 2 SCC 299 . It has been held that the opinion of the competent authority with regard to compulsory retirement of a person is the subjective satisfaction of the said authority which has been formed on the basis of the service record. Compulsory retirement, it has been held in the aforesaid case does not amount to punishment and hence the principles of natural justice are not required to be followed in such cases. That apart, it has been held that judicial review of the order is only permissible on the ground of malafide. ( 10. ) SIMILARLY, in the case of I. K. Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. , (1997) 6 SCC 228 , it has been held following the decision in the case of Baikuniha Nath Das (supra) that after considering the service record of the employee, if the Committee comes to a conclusion that he can be compulsorily retired then Courts should not interfere with the same until and unless mala/ides are attributed and proved. The law laid down in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) has been affirmed in the aforesaid case. ( 11. ) THE scope of judicial review in such cases was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of M. S. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors. , (1998) 7 SCC 310 . The law laid down in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) has been affirmed in the aforesaid case. ( 11. ) THE scope of judicial review in such cases was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of M. S. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors. , (1998) 7 SCC 310 . It has been held that the Courts should interfere in such matters only if the material on the basis of which the Committee took a decision is such that no reasonable man would come to such a conclusion or there is no evidence or material warrant for arriving at a conclusion. ( 12. ) IN the instant case, as has already been indicated hereinabove, service record of the petitioner is such that there is enough material and it is not a case wherein it can be said that no evidence is available or no material is available on record. ( 13. ) SIMILARLY, in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar and Ors. , (1993) 3 SCC 396, the scope of judicial review was again considered by the Supreme Court and the law laid down in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) was followed and the scope of judicial review has been discussed. ( 14. ) CONSIDERING the case in hand and the law enunciated by the Supreme Court and on due consideration of the entire record produced before this Court, I am of the view that the action of the respondents in compulsorily retiring petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal and the conclusion is in conformity, with the material available on record which could be neither termed as a case of no evidence nor a case falling within the clause of no reasonable man would come to such a conclusion. ( 15. ) IN the light of the aforesaid, I find no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner. ( 16. ) THE petition is accordingly dismissed.