Judgment

K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE respondent was compulsorily retired from service on February 3, 1990. The High court has set aside that compulsory retirement on two grounds, namely: (1) that three months salary in lieu of notice has not been paid simultaneously along with the order of compulsory retire- ment, and (2) in the Screening Committee which considered the case of the respondent the participation of Shri R.P. Goyal who had given an adverse entry in one year against the respondent has vitiated the order of compulsory retirement.

(3) THE High court seems to be too technical. Three months salary in lieu of notice was sent by cheque to the respondent. The cheque was sent on 5/04/1990. "There is no reason to disbelieve this fact. In the affidavit on behalf of the government it has been stated that the cheque was sent to the respondent but it was returned. It is not in dispute that the cheque was drawn, and there is no reason why it should be dis- believed merely on the ground that some other letter has not been produced.

(4) THE second reason given by the High court is equally untenable. Shri Goyal is the concerned Chief Engineer. He is also required to take a decision on the compulsory retirement of the respondent. His participation in the Committee was inevitable and could not be found fault with. Secondly, the record reveals that the respondent got adverse entries right from 1961-62 to 1973-74, 1977-78, 1979-80, 1980-81 and even sub- sequently. In view of the poor record of service, we think that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retire- ment.

(5) IN the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High court. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.