Back
2007(1) JLJ 364
A.K. Patnaik, C.J. and P.K. Jaiswal, J.
State of M.P. and others v. M.S. Wakankar and another
Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2002 (Gwalior): against the order of the
M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Gwalior, passed in
OA No.395 of 1994; Decided on 2.11.2006.
By order dated 4.3.1994, the respondent was compulsorily retired under FR 56(3). Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed OA No.395/94 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench. By the impugned order dated 29.9.2001, the Tribunal quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 4.3.1994 after holding that the Screening Committee considered the ACRs of the respondent No.1 only for last 5 years and had not considered the entire records of service. [Para 2
Held : The authority to form an opinion as to whether a Government servant should be compulsorily retired in the public interest is not the Court but the State Government or the Screening Committee and in the peculiar facts of this case, the Tribunal should not have quashed the order of compulsory retirement but should have directed the State Government to reconsider the case of the respondent for compulsory retirement after taking into consideration the entire service records. [Para 6
For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 29.9.2001 and direct that the State Government and/or the Screening Committee will consider the entire service record of the respondent No.1 and in case they find that the respondent No.1 should not have been compusorily retired from service under FR 56(3), they will cancel the order of compulsory retirement treating the respondent as having retired from service from the date of superannuation, which is said to be 2.3.1996, and pay him, his salary and allowances for the period from the date of order of compulsory retirement till the date of superannuation. AIR 1992 SC 1020, (2001)3 SCC 314 and Civil Appeal No.5866/2002 followed. 2006(111) MPWN 91 and Writ Petition No.113/2002 relied on. [Para 8
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- label of petition will not limit the jurisdiction of High Court -- petition labelled under Art.227 -- averments and grounds falling under Art. 226 -- High Court can exercise jurisdiction under 226 also. [Para 7
¼1½ ewy fu;e & &fu-56¼3½& &e-ç- flfoy lsok ¼isa‘ku½ fu;e] 1976& &fu-42¼1½¼[k½& &flfoy lsod dh vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk& &lsok ds laiw.kZ vfHkys[k ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,& &vf/kdj.kA U;k;ky; vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk dk vkns‘k nsus ;k mls vfHk[kafMr djus okyk çkf/kdkjh ugha gS& &og jkT; ljdkj ;k Nkuchu lfefr gS& &jkT ljdkj dks ekeys ij iqu% fopkj djus dk vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vkns‘k fnukad 4-3-1994 }kjk çR;FkhZ ewy fu;e 56 ds v/khu vfuok;Zr% lsokfuo`Ùk dj fn;k x;kA mDr vkns‘k ls O;fFkr çR;FkhZ us e-ç- ç‘kklfud vf/kdj.k] Xokfy;j ihB ds le{k ewy vkosnu Ø-395@1994 Qkby fd;kA vkf{kIr vkns‘k fnukad 29-9-2001 }kjk vf/kdj.k us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus ds i‘pkr fd Nkuchu lfefr us çR;FkhZ Ø-1 ds dsoy xr ik¡p o"kZ dh , lh vkj ij fopkj fd;k gS] lsok ds laiw.kZ vfHkys[k ij ugha] vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk dk vkns‘k fnukad 4-3-1994 vfHk[kafMr dj fn;kA ¼iSjk 2½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % dksbZ ljdkjh lsod yksd fgr esa vfuok;Zr% lsokfuo`Ùk fd;k tkuk pkfg, ;k ugha ;g jk; xfBr djus okyk çkf/kdj.k U;k;ky; ugha vfirq jkT; ljdkj ;k Nkuchu lfefr gS] rFkk bl ekeys ds fof‘k"V rF;ksa esa vf/kdj.k }kjk vfuok;Z lsokfuo`Ùk dk vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk vfirq jkT; ljdkj dks lsok ds laiw.kZ vfHkys[k ij fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~ vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk ds fy, çR;FkhZ ds ekeys ij iqu% fopkj djus dk funs‘k nsuk pkfg, FkkA ¼iSjk 6½ iwoksZDr dkj.kksa ls ge vf/kdj.k dk vkns‘k fnukad 29-9-2001 vikLr djrs gSa rFkk funs‘k nsrs gSa fd jkT; ljdkj vkSj@;k Nkuchu lfefr çR;FkhZ Ø-1 dh lsok ds laiw.kZ vfHkys[k ij fopkj djs rFkk ;fn mldk fu"d"kZ gks fd çR;FkhZ Ø-1 ewy fu;e 56¼3½ ds v/khu vfuok;Zr% lsokfuo`Ùk ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk rc og vfuok;Z lsoko`fÙk dk vkns‘k jn~n djs vkSj çR;FkhZ dks vf/kokf"kZdh ds fnukad ls] tks 2-3-1996 gksuk dfFkr gS] lsokfuo`Ùk ekurs gq, mls vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk ds vkns‘k ds fnukad ls vf/kokf"kZdh ds fnukad rd dh vof/k ds fy, mldk osru vkSj mlds HkÙks lanÙk djsA , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 1020] ¼2001½3 ,l lh lh 314 rFkk flfoy vihy Ø-5866@2002 vuqlfjrA 2006¼3½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 91 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Ø-113@2002 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 8½ ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku& &vuq- 226 rFkk 227& &;kfpdk ds yscy ls mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk lhfer ugha gksxh& &;kfpdk ij vuq-227 dk yscy& &çdFku vkSj vk/kkj vuq-226 ds v/khu& &mPp U;k;ky; vuq-226 ds v/khu Hkh vf/kdkfjrk ç;qDr dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 7½
Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.9.2001 passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, in OA No.395/94.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was originally inducted in Government service in the year 1957 in the office of the IG Municipality and after abolition of the office of the IG Municipality, he was taken into service of the Collectorate, Ujjain as a Lower Division Clerk. He was posted as Lower Division Clerk in the Land Records and Settlement at Gwalior and thereafter was promoted to the post of Assistant. By order dated 4.3.1994, the respondent was compulsorily retired under FR 56(3). Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed OA No.395/ 94 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench. By the impugned order dated 29.9.2001, the Tribunal quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 4.3.1994 after holding that the Screening Committee considered the ACRs of the respondent No.1 only for last 5 years and had not considered the entire records of service contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikunthnath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada [AIR 1992 SC 1020]. In the said order dated 29.9.2001, the Tribunal also directed the authorities to grant consequential reliefs to the respondent.
3. Mrs. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the case of Baikunthanath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another in para 32 of the judgment as reported in the AIR, the Supreme Court has summed up the principles in a case where an order of compulsory retirement is challenged before the Court, and it will be clear from the said para 32 of the judgment that interference with the order of compulsory retirement will be permissible only when the Court is satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide, or (b) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be a perverse order. She submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikunthanath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another (supra), and has interfered with the order of compulsory retirement only on the ground that the entire service record of the respondent No.1 has not been considered and instead only 5 years ACRs of the respondent No.1 have been considered. She further submitted that in the present case, the ACRs of the respondent No.1 would show that during the period from 30.9.1966 to 31.3.1994, the respondent No.1 was graded 7 kha (good), 17 ga (average) and 2 gha (below average). She further submitted that several adverse remarks have also been entered in the ACRs of the respondent No.1 and in the last ACR of the respondent, an adverse remark has been entered that such type of employee, who has no knowledge about the service rules and official procedures and does not take interest in learning, should not be retained in Government service. She submitted that even if the entire service record of the respondent was considered by the Screening Committee, then Screening Committee would have come to the same conclusion that the respondent should be compulsory retired under FR 56(3) in the public interest.
4. Mr. Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikunthanath Das (supra), is very clear that the entire service record of a Government servant has to be considered for taking the decision whether or not to retire the employee compulsorily from service in the public interest and this view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [(2001)3 SCC 314]. He further submitted that in the case of State of M.P.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
