Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Mahesh Narayan Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary of Home Ministry of Central Government – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impugned compulsory retirement order under rule 48; not punitive. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. conflicting claims on service record: good vs. 18 punishments. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. rule 48(1)(b) and fr 56(j) allow public interest retirement. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. order valid per service record; precedents distinguished; not shortcut. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. petition dismissed; no merit in challenge. (Para 13) |
Oral Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.) :-
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This petition primarily assails the order dated 30 October 2019 passed by the Commandant, CISF, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short “CCC Pension Rules”), after the petitioner having completed 30 years of service by holding the petitioner being entitled to qualify for pension as on 10 October 2019. At the outset, the impugned order requires to be noted which reads thus:-
“ केऔसुब पर् आवा जड़वाह, मपर्
दिनांक: 30/10/2019
ORDER
Whereas the Commandant is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.
Now, therefore, in exer
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
