Compulsory retirement should be based on public interest, and proper procedures should be followed, avoiding shortcuts to avoid departmental inquiries.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) A writ of Mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to

(i) quash and set aside impugned orders dated 08.05.2015 as well as 14.07.2016 passed in order-in-appeal and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, consequential benefits as if Order dated 08.05.2015 is not passed;

(ii) to direct respondent No.2 to hold detail inquiry into the representations made by the petitioner with regard to the illegalities and irregularities committed in Gujarat Housing Board and to take stern and prompt action against the concerned personnel in the said irregularities;

(iii) to direct respondent No.2 to take immediate and stern action against respondent Nos.4 to 9 for passing absolute illegal and unjustified order of premature retirement purely out of victimization and in mala fide manner;

(B) …

(C) …”

2. If we peruse the record, it appears that the petitioner joined the services of the Board in 1990 as an Assistant Engineer. On 11.03.2015, he was served with the notice asking as to why he has made direct representation to chairman and board members on 21.02.2015. The petitioner filed his detailed reply. But, on the very day on which the Review Committee's proceedings came to be received by the Board, order of premature retirement came to be passed. The Review Committee has considered that there is lack of integrity on the part of the petitioner. On 08.05.2015 order of premature retirement came to be issued. He filed an appeal before the Board on 15.06.2015. However, the same was not decided by the Board and therefore, petitioner preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No.19914 of 2015 and vide order dated 11.01.2016, this Court has directed the respondent No.1 to hear and decide the appeal within six months. As such, board confirmed the order of premature retirement vide its order dated 12.08.2016. It also appears that since the petitioner has been prematurely retired, pension is given to him at fix rate and no regular pension has been given to the petitioner. The impugned order of compulsory retirement is made the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

Xxxx

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. He submits that the order of compulsory retirement came to be passed as a shortcut to avoid the departmental inquiry. He further pointed out that order of premature retirement has been passed without considering Confidential Reports of the petitioner, since they are not not available and non – availability of Confidential Reports is not the fault of the petitioner and it cannot be made ground for premature retirement. He submits that when the petitioner has drawn the attention of the board to the irregularities and illegalities going on in the department, such action has been taken against the petitioner. He pointed out that his client would have otherwise retired in the year 2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. In such circumstances referred to above, he prays to allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

4.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner is relying upon the following decisions;

(1) Oral Judgment dated 08.09.2016 in Special Civil Application No.9045 of 2002 between D. M. Patel and Housing Commissioner and Oral Judgment dated 22.12.2021 in Letters Patent Appeal No.276 of 2017 against such order.

(2) Oral Order dated 13.10.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No.918 of 2016 between Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs. Jayendra Chimanlal Shah.

(3) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India reported in 2023 JX (SC) 199 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani for the responde