Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 125 (MP)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. K. K. SHARMA

2006-01-23

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA, ARUN MISHRA

body2006
( 1 ) IN this writ petition State of M. P. has assailed the order passed by the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal on 23-6-2000 in Original Application No. 1372/98. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Shri K. K. Sharma, the respondent was in the service of Forest Department of State of M. P. He was initially appointed as a Range Officer. Ultimately he came to be promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest as per order dated 22nd February, 1994 (A-3) with retrospective effect from 7-10-1983, which order was passed in pursuance to holding of a review D. P. C. as per the directions issued by the State Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 399/91. He was found fit and suitable for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Consequently his seniority was fixed over his junior and he was given consequential benefits w. e. f. 7-10-1983. However, back wages were not given. Therefore respondent filed another O. A. No. 792/95 for non-compliance of the order and for giving consequential benefits w. e. f. 7-10-1983. The respondent was promoted as Assistant Conservator Forest vide order dated 1-3-1996. Six months after his joining at Guna he was transferred vide order dated 3-9-1996 (A-6) to Balaghat. He filed a writ petition. The Principal Secretary, Forest got annoyed owing to the petitioner's filing writ petition. One journalist had filed a complaint about the financial irregularities against the respondent at the time when he was posted at Guna. The allegations were not substantiated. Superintendent of Police Lokayukt, Gwalior recommended for filing final report. Even then a challan under Prevention of Corruption Act was put up and he was placed under suspension as per order dated 15-6-1996 (A-9 ). Respondent filed a representation, however he was compulsorily retired without awaiting the decision of the Special Court in pending criminal case. Respondent filed a representation, which was not attended to. ( 3 ) STAND of the State in the return was that order of compulsory retirement was passed in the public interest under Rule 42 (1) (b) of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with F. R. 56. There were several complaints received against Shri K. K. Sharma. Case under Prevention of Corruption Act was filed before the Competent Court. The representation was considered and rejected. Respondent was placed under suspension for not joining at Khandwa. There were several complaints received against Shri K. K. Sharma. Case under Prevention of Corruption Act was filed before the Competent Court. The representation was considered and rejected. Respondent was placed under suspension for not joining at Khandwa. Committee has considered the case in accordance with law. No interference in the order of compulsory retirement is made out. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial has found that the screening committee, which was constituted has simply noted the fact that case under Prevention of Corruption Act was filed. It has not found the integrity of employee as doubtful. Apart from that the reason employed by the screening committee to retire Shri K. K. Sharma was that he did not furnish his own confidential record. He was thus considered not fit for continuance in service in the public interest. Hence his compulsory retirement was proposed as he has rendered 25 years of qualifying service. The Tribunal has found that for assessing the integrity entire record has not been considered. Performance particularly for the last five years has also not been considered. Merely pendency of criminal case could not be the basis to form an opinion that integrity is doubtful. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar and Ors; and State of Gujarat v. Swyakant Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529 . The application was allowed. Order of compulsory retirement dated 13-2-1998 was quashed by the Tribunal and reinstatement was ordered with consequential benefits. ( 5 ) THIS writ petition was preferred. Initially it was dismissed for want of prosecution in the year 2000. There was no interim stay granted. Operation of order passed by the Tribunal was not stayed. The date of birth of the respondent was 17-7-1943. It is submitted at bar that by now he has already attained the age of normal superannuation and he has retired from service. ( 6 ) SHRI Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that no case for judicial scrutiny of the order of compulsory retirement is made out and order of compulsory retirement can not be said to be an order inflicting punishment. Screening Committee has ordered for compulsory retirement in public interest. His integrity was doubtful owing to pendency of criminal case at the relevant time therefore it was considered proper to retire him. Screening Committee has ordered for compulsory retirement in public interest. His integrity was doubtful owing to pendency of criminal case at the relevant time therefore it was considered proper to retire him. Apart from that he had failed to fill his confidential report, which was unbecoming act of an employee. Thus, his case was rightly recommended by the screening committee for compulsory retirement. ( 7 ) SHRI D. P. Singh Rathore, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that entire record is required to be considered. While passing the order of compulsory retirement entire record was not considered. Apart from the entire record the screening committee was required to consider in particular last five years service record, which was not looked into. Respondent had good record. He was promoted and found fit for promotion in 1994 with retrospective effect from 7-10-1983. Thus, he has submitted that there was no material on the basis of which respondent could have been retired in the public interest. No such material was mentioned in the return nor it has been filed alongwith this writ petition. He has further submitted that the criminal case has ended in his acquittal, which ground stands wiped of. Merely pendency of criminal case could not have been a ground to order compulsory retirement. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, going through the order and the various other documents on record, we find that the screening committee had failed to consider all the relevant considerations, which are required to pass valid order of compulsory retirement. It is not apparent from the recommendations made by the Screening Committee that entire service record was perused with the special emphasis to the last five years performance. It is not apparent that the aforesaid aspects were taken into consideration. It is conceded by Shri Vivek Khedkar, Govt. Advocate that there is no ACR on the record to show that integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. The basis of the recommendations was that criminal case was pending consideration. It is not apparent that the aforesaid aspects were taken into consideration. It is conceded by Shri Vivek Khedkar, Govt. Advocate that there is no ACR on the record to show that integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. The basis of the recommendations was that criminal case was pending consideration. Merely because respondent was involved in the criminal case in our opinion in the peculiar facts of the case as projected and also duly considering the fact that criminal case has ultimately come to an end and ended in acquittal, though in our considered opinion it is open to look into the record of the pending criminal case but as the other safeguards which are necessary to be observed while passing order of compulsory retirement were not duly observed by the committee. Entire service record was not taken into consideration. Absence of entry in C. R. about doubtful integrity, factum of promotion by order dated 22-2-1994 with retrospective effect was not taken into consideration. In the circumstances the Tribunal has interfered. In the facts of the instant case the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the decision of the case in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (supra), in which the Apex Court has held that-The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a Court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the Court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. There being no material before the Review Committee, in as much as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the character roll entries subsequent to the respondent's promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone also to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest. The Division Bench, in our opinion, was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directing reinstatement of the respondents. ( 9 ) IN the instant case no further material is pointed out. We are of the opinion that it was necessary for the petitioner State to point out the material to make the integrity of the respondent as doubtful, which material has not been placed on record. In the circumstances, in the absence of entry as to doubtful integrity and also failure of consideration that the respondent was promoted with retrospective effect giving ten years benefit, merely by the fact he did not fill in his form of confidential report could not have been made a ground to treat the respondent as dead wood required to be chopped off. Thus, we find that case for interference in this writ petition is not made out. We find Writ Petition to be devoid of merit. Same is hereby dismissed. .