Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1118 (MP)

G. R. Dhupar v. State Of M. P.

2011-09-22

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2011
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition was originally filed as Original Application No. 3079/1998 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal and has been transmitted to this Court after closure of the Tribunal, and is renumberect as W.P. No. 13087/2003. The petitioner, who was at the relevant time working as Principal Class I in the Industrial Training Institute, Khandwa, was aggrieved with an order of compulsory retirement issued on 18th February, 1998 (Annexure A-4) and after making of representation, approached the M.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the said order on various grounds. ( 2. ) IT was contended by the petitioner that he has unblemished service record to his credit and could not have been compulsorily retired treating him as a dead wood in view of the fact that the petitioner after grant of promotion as Principal was made to work on the post of Apprentice Advisor, which was equivalent to the post of Deputy Director and was also made to officiate on the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 6-11-1994 to 11-10-1995. IT is contended by the petitioner that had he been so bad in his service performance he would not have given the benefit of higher post than the substantive rank of the petitioner and therefore, it is contended that the order of compulsory retirement is unsustainable in the eye of law. The respondents in their return have contended that there were adverse entries in the confidential report of the petitioner for the years 1976, 1977 and 1983. There was one more fact that the Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the order of recovery was issued against him on 26-6-1997. It is contended by the respondents that taking into consideration of these facts, the petitioner was found to be fit for compulsory retirement in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (3) and therefore, the order of compulsory retirement was issued. ( 3. ) THE petitioner by way of filing rejoinder has controverted such fats and has categorically stated that he was not served with the adverse entries of confidential report as mentioned in the return of the respondents and was denied any opportunity to explain his conduct, seeking expunging of the adverse part from the confidential report. Since he was given the posting on higher posts thereafter, the effect of adverse entries was wiped out. Since he was given the posting on higher posts thereafter, the effect of adverse entries was wiped out. It is also contended that once charge- sheet was issued, enquiry is conducted and the penalty is imposed the petitioner could not have been compulsorily retired taking into account such facts of the Departmental Enquir. THE respondents have tried to make out the case by filing an additional return. ( 4. ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The law of compulsory retirement is already settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Umed Bhai Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 , wherein it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that there are settled parameters on account of which the cases for compulsory retirement are required to be considered. This has been categorically held by the Apex Court that compulsory retirement cannot be based on a finding recorded in a Departmental Enquiry on account of which the punishment is already issued to the delinquent employee. It has been held categorically by the Apex Court that overall service record is required to be considered and for one or few stale confidential reports, communicated or un-communicated, an employee/officer is not to be adjudged as a dead wood, unfit to remain in service in the public interest and is not required to be compulsorily retired. This Court vide order dated 30th November, 2010 directed the respondents/State to produce the Screening Committee record for perusal of this Court. Time and again adjournment was sought and despite specific order the said record was not produced. However, from the facts as have-been stated in the return, it is clear that only for the aforesaid three Annual Confidential Reports of the years 1976,1977 and 1983 as also a punishment awarded in a Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was said to be found fit for compulsory retirement in the year 1998. Such a conduct of the respondents cannot be accepted. The recent record of the service of the petitioner was not examined and only for the aforesaid three confidential reports, he has been declared unfit to continue in the employment. ( 5. ) IN view of this, the order impugned dated 18-2-1998 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. Such a conduct of the respondents cannot be accepted. The recent record of the service of the petitioner was not examined and only for the aforesaid three confidential reports, he has been declared unfit to continue in the employment. ( 5. ) IN view of this, the order impugned dated 18-2-1998 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, it will be deemed, as if, he has continued in the service till he actually attained the age of his superannuation and he will be entitled to the salary for the said period. It is further directed that the recommendation made with respect to the promotion of the petitioner, kept in the sealed cover during the period he was facing the Departmental Enquiry and was later on compulsory retired, will be looked into and the respondents will take a fresh decision whether to grant promotion to the petitioner or not. The arrears of the salary be paid to the petitioner for the period of compulsory retirement and his claim for promotion be finalized within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. ( 6. ) THE petition succeeds and allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. THEre shall be no order as to cost.