Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G.L. Oza, C.J. and B.M. Lal, J.
SAMBHUDAYAL SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided On : Apr 23,1985
(2) Words and Phrases-'public interest'-import of.
It is settled law that the power to retire a public servant compulsorily in 'public interest' in terms of rule 42 of the Rules is absolute, provided the retiring authority reaches a bona fide opinion in 'public interest', to pass such an order. [Para 19
It is also settled law that if the decision of compulsory retirement is based on collateral ground and is otherwise arbitrary which could be demonstrated from the record that order passed is biased and mala fide, the same would be interfered with by the High Court.
Unlimited exercise of discretion cannot be granted to the authorities under the guise of 'public interest', and when an action is challenged, its validity depends upon its being supported by 'public interest'. The authority concerned must disclose the material to the Court to satisfy that the order is not unreasonable for want of any material whatsoever.
'Public interest' should not be used as a tool or weapon of personal and political interest while invoking Rule 42. AIR 1984 SC 630, AIR 1981 SC 70, AIR 1981 SC 594 relied on. [Paras 20, 23
(3) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M. P.)-R. 42-'public interest'-cannot be achieved by fabrication.
In File No. 22/4/83/1/25 (Compulsory retirement file) at page 85, S. No. 65, where the name of the petitioner finds place in column 8 for the years 1981 to 1983, alphabet ^x* has been fabricated and over figured as ^?k*. By this fabrication we have no hesitation to say that the authorities concerned in the garb of 'public interest' tried to ruin the career of the petitioner by doing manipulation in his confidential reports character roll written in one day i.e. on 16-1-1984, which is apparent from the record. [Para 12
(4) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M. P.)-R. 42-order of compulsory retirement-reasons must be given-the order should be a speaking order. [Para 31
(5) Government Servants-service matters-Government is expected to act in fairness.
(6) Government Administration-Welfare State-duty of.
In our Welfare State Which is of democratic set up, the Government is not only supposed but actually is the chief custodian of its people who have great faith and confidence on it and therefore, it is expected that the Government shall act and deal with its people in all fairness in all matters, may be a service matter or any other matter relating to administration etc. [Para 33
(7) Constitution of India-Art. 226-return on behalf of State Government-duty of Advocate General.
In the return filed on behalf of the State Government, the State officials filed a false return and affidavit in a deliberate attempt to spoil the service record of the petitioner, without any respect for the truth at all.
Held: While filing the return, the respondent State has suppressed material facts. In future it is expected of the office of the Advocate General that while drafting the return they should look into the relevant documents and after satisfying themselves, should file return so that they may not be faced with this ugly situation, as has arisen in this case. [Para 35
( 1. ) PETITIONER, Dr. Shambu-dayal Sharma who is double M. A. , M. Ed, and Ph. D. was appointed as an upper division teacher on 6th September, 1958 by the respondent No. 1 and his services were placed under the respondent No. 2, the Director, Tribal, Harijan and Backward Classes Welfare Department, Government of. Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. He was discharging his duties honestly, efficiently and diligently. Therefore, according to him, he was given timely promotion to the higher posts and was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar by an order of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner on 8th October, 1984 was posted as Principal, Higher Secondary School, Kurai, District Seoni, from where he was compulsorily retired by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the rules ). Therefore, this petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
( 2. ) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 8th October, 1984 contained in Document No. 1 passed by the respondent No. 1.
( 3. ) IN brief, the case of the petitioner is that at the time of compulsory retirement, although he had served the department for 25 years, yet he was only about 52 years old and his retiring age being 60 years, his premature retirement made on 8th October, 1984, is illegal mala fide and passed in colourable exercise of powers which is against the public interest.
( 4. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, throughout in his service career, his disposition of work has been excellent, inasmuch as he was neither awarded any punishment so far, nor was ever communicated any adverse confidential character report. Hence, according to him, his compulsory retirement is based on extraneous considerations which cannot be said to be any public interest. ( 5. ) THE petitioner further submits that he had been Principal in a Tribal Higher Secondary School for the last near about 11 years. During that period the results of the Board Examinations were ranging from 80 per cent to 100 per cent and he implemented and encouraged all activities leading to the development of tribal students.
( 6. ) FOR his extra efficient and excellent disposition of work, he was given responsible duties of valuation of answer books as Deputy Head Valuer. He was also appointed the head of the Flying Squad to supervise Middle School Board Examinations of Jabalpur Division.
( 7. ) THE petitioner was Principal in a Tribal School in Mandla District for near about eight years, i. e. , from 1977 to February, 1984 and from there he was transferred to Kurai, District Seoni as Principal of Tribal Higher Secondary School. He states that at Mandla while maintaining the discipline in the institution, he had to take strict action against his subordinate staff and the students so that the discipline of the institution may not be disturbed. Because of his punctilious treatment with his subordinate staff and the students of the school, it caused annoyance to some of the members of the staff who were trying to prevail upon him by instigating the students and making false complaints against him.
( 8. ) SHRI A. B. Dube, Upper Division Clerk who was working under the petitioners hand, had good relations with Shri Dahima, Collector, Mandla and the former was instrumental in disturbing the school peace and discipline.
( 9. ) ON petitioners report against A. B. Dube, Shri Dahima, Collector, Mandla appointed Shri Arya, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandla to inquire into the matter, but according to the petitioner A. B. Dube was so thick with the Collector, Shri Dahima that he managed to bring pressure upon Shri Arya, with the result, instead of taking any action against A. B. Dube, disciplinary action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner for which, Shri Dahima by misusing his high office, wrote a letter to the Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal about the
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
