ORDER

This matter was dismissed twice for want of prosecution i.e on 28.7.2015 and thereafter on 9.11.2021, however, the same was restored vide order dated 18.2.2016 (M.C.C. No.581-2016) and 9.11.2021 (M.C.C No.1863-2021). The same was called for final hearing on 28.3.2022. Since nobody appeared, therefore, we directed to keep it for hearing on 29.3.2022. On 29.3.2022 also nobody appeared for the petitioner even when the matter was called out in the second round. Under such circumstances, since the petition is pending for last 20 years, we are left with no option except to decide it on merits with the assistance of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and on the basis of material available on record. Hence, we proceed to decide the same.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the notice dated 19.8.2002 (Annexure P-1), the order of rejection of his representation dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P-11) and another order dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P-12), whereby, he has been compulsorily retired.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Process Writer vide order dated 18.6.1977. He was promoted as LDC on 28.10.1978 and was further promoted as A.G.-II with effect from 9.4.1993. Since then he was working on the post of A.G-II under the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Betul. He submits that on 28.9.1999, he was served with the charge sheet for the alleged misconduct. The same was replied by him on 14.10.1999 and, thereafter, neither any inquiry officer was appointed nor any departmental inquiry was held, therefore, the matter stood closed.

3. He submits that without there being any material against him, he was served with another notice dated 19.8.2002 (Annexure P-1) which was issued under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1976”). Petitioner submits that he made a representation to the Hon’ble High Court on administrative side which has also been rejected vide order dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P-11). Thereafter, by another order dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P-12), the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 19.11.2002 under the Rules of 1976.

4. We have perused the record and we find that the petitioner has mainly challenged the order of his compulsory retirement on the ground the petitioner received adverse confidential report of the year 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 which were communicated to him after 15th of June of the concerned years. He submits that as the same were communicated to him after 15th of June of the concerned years, therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever. For the year 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, there was no complaint against him. Thus the same should not have been taken into consideration. Since the charge sheet did not culminate into departmental inquiry and punishment, hence the same should not have been taken into account while passing the order of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed without affording him any opportunity of hearing.

5. The legal position with respect to compulsory retirement is well settled. The principles of natural justice are not applicable in the case of compulsory retirement. Moreso, the uncommunicated adverse confidential report can also be taken into consideration while taking the decision regarding compulsory retirement. (See : Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical Officer [(1992) 2 SCC 299]. Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and others [(2010)10 SCC 693.].

6. We have carefully examined the material available on record against the petitioner. The entire service record of the petitioner was considered before taking the decision of compulsory retirement. Some of the incidents have been relied upon by the respondents