The court established the importance of objective assessment and adherence to guidelines for compulsory retirement, and clarified the competence of the appointing authority to pass retirement orders without prior approval of the State Government.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to assail the order of compulsory retirement Annexure P/1 dated 14.6.2001 passed by respondent no.2 and relieving order Annexure P/2, this petition has been preferred, seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2. Petitioner inter alia contended, that he was appointed as Process Writer and posted at Mandsaur. In the year 1995 with mala fide intention he was transferred and posted in the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ujjain. While posting at Ujjain, he was subjected to harassment and mental agony, however, compelled to take leave, which was not sanctioned and treating it as unauthorized absence, a charge sheet was served. On filing the reply, a departmental enquiry was initiated wherein he was found guilty and negligent in discharge of duties. The disciplinary authority inflicted the major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It is said that except the said penalty, he was not subjected to any departmental enquiry during his entire service period and no adverse communication has been made. The petitioner belongs to reputed family of Sitamau, District Mandsaur and his wife contested the election of President, Nagar Panchayat however, the opponent made a complaint regarding participation of petitioner in the election, but it was found frivolous and in preliminary enquiry the said complaint was rejected, but his constant harassment continued. However, the orders impugned Annexure P/1 and P/2 were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is said that the order Annexure P/1 is a non-speaking order passed on the recommendation of Screening Committee without considering the entire service record. It is said that singular order of punishment cannot form the basis to pass an order of compulsory retirement.

It is further said that the Scrutiny Committee has not followed the norms and procedure specified vide Government circular dated 22.8.2000 and without approval of the State Government, order impugned is not in conformity with law. As the cases of other similarly situated persons have not been considered while recommending the case of the petitioner to retire him in public interest, though the statutory functionary is bound to act fairly and to assign the reasons to support their findings. However, to single out the petitioner order impugned has been passed.

3. Respondent no.2 by filing the return, inter alia contended that Rule 42(1)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules) empowers the appointing authority to retire a Government servant in public interest on completion of 20 years of service or 50 years of age.

The State Government has issued a circular dated 22.8.2000 laying down the criteria, how and in what manner the scrutiny is to be done. As per the said circular a Committee was constituted for the purpose of scrutiny of the employees who comes within the said criteria. The said Committee comprises of Special Judge and two Additional District & Sessions Judges, Ujjain. They scrutinized the service record of 47 employees including petitioner, and after overall assessment, made the recommendation against petitioner and four others to retire them compulsorily leaving others to continue in employment. It is said that the Committee while considering the cases of 47 employees applied the uniform norms to all, and also in case of petitioner, thus, the plea to single out the petitioner recommendation was made by Committee, is incorrect hence denied. The averments regarding political motivation or mala fide intention were also specifically denied. It is said the Scrutiny Committee has considered the over all performance including CRs and made the recommendation based on the objective assessment. Thus, recommendation of Committee is based on bona fides, however, said interference in the facts is beyond the sco