Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1161 (MP)

Santaji Rao Bhonsle v. State of M. P.

2008-09-16

R.S.JHA

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.6.200 1 by which he has been compulsorily retired from service on scrutiny of his case under Fundamental Rules 56 read with Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1976'). 2. The case of the petitioner, before this Court, is that the petitioner had a good service record and was not communicated with any adverse entries in spite of which the respondents have compulsorily retired the petitioner which indicates total non-application of mind and perversity on their part. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no element of public interest involved in the issuance of the impugned order and in fact public interest would not have been adversely effected if he would have been retained in service. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order, being arbitrary and perverse, deserves to be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 3. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner's service record was not good and, therefore, the duly constituted Screening Committee, on consideration of his entire service record with specific emphasis on the last 5 years of his service, recommended his case for compulsory retirement. It is submitted that the impugned order is based on due and proper scrutiny of the petitioner's service record by the Screening Committee and, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the impugned order does not suffer from mala fide, non-application of mind or Wednesbury unreasonableness which are the limited grounds for judicial review in orders of compulsory retirement in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 and subsequent decisions following the same. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The respondents have also produced the service record of the petitioner to substantiate the impugned order of compulsory retirement. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The respondents have also produced the service record of the petitioner to substantiate the impugned order of compulsory retirement. From a perusal of the service record of the petitioner it is apparent that the petitioner was initially appointed as Process Writer on 26.2.1974 and was, thereafter, promoted as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1982. His case for compulsory retirement was scrutinized by the Screening Committee in exercise of powers under Fundamental Rule 56 read with Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1976, as he had completed 20 years of service and had also attained the age of 50 years. 5. A perusal of the petitioner's service record indicates that from the year 1989 onwards he was mostly graded 'Ordinary' and was awarded 'C' grade in the Annual Confidential Report. It is also clear that in the year 1990 he was given a warning, by two separate orders dated 5.6.1998 punishment of stoppage of one increment non-cumulatively and two increments non-cumulatively respectively were imposed upon him. On 11.11.1998 a character roll warning was issued to him, on 22.6.2000 another character roll warning was issued and in the year 2000 he was graded 'D' and the adverse entry to that effect was communicated to the petitioner on 13.7.2001. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged or assailed the order of punishment or the character roll warnings issued to him. The respondents, in their reply, have also stated that between the period 20.5.1996 to 30.6.2001 the petitiner was on leave for 463 days out of a total of 1100 working days. 6. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner's service record was not as unblemished as is stated by the petitioner in the petition and that the Screening Committee has taken into consideration all the aforesaid aspects including the fact that the petitioner's service record was deteriorating in the last five years and that he was not showing any improvement in his work, while recommending his case for compulsory retirement in public interest. From a perusal of the documents filed by the respondents, along with their return, it is also apparent that the Screening Committee scrutinized the cases of 47 employees and recommended compulsory retirement of 5 employees. From a perusal of the documents filed by the respondents, along with their return, it is also apparent that the Screening Committee scrutinized the cases of 47 employees and recommended compulsory retirement of 5 employees. From a perusal of the service record of the petitioner and the minutes of the Screening Committee it is also apparent that the present case was not one of either perversity or mala fide as the Screening Committee has taken into consideration the petitioner's service record objectively and recommended his case for compulsory retirement as there is sufficient material on record to justify the same. 7. It is a settled law that this Court, while dealing with petitions challenging compulsory retirement, cannot assume the role of a Screening Committee and its interference in orders of compulsory retirement is limited only to cases of mala fide, no evidence and unreasonableness leading to perversity in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 , State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 and Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam and another, (2003) 4 SCC 59 , all of which are absent in the present case. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the petition, filed by the petitioner, which is, accordingly, dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. Petition dismissed.