The court upheld the validity of compulsory retirement under Clause 31(1) of the CEDMAP Staff Regulations, affirming that principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases.

Pleading are complete.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

The respondents in pursuance to the direction given by this Court have submitted the record of Screening Committee and also the service record of the petitioner.

2. Calling in question the legality and validity of order dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure-P/18) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be compulsorily retired in pursuance to Clause 31(1) of the Centre For Entrepreneurship Development Madhya Pradesh (CEDMAP) Staff Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 1991’), the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The challenge is made on the grounds of mala fide against respondent No.4 and also the competency of the authority.

4. As per the petitioner, the Chairman of respondent No.1 is the competent authority, whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Executive Director i.e. respondent No.4, who is not competent to hold the said post and to pass the impugned order, therefore, it is illegal and passed by the incompetent authority. It is alleged by the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is stated that since it carries civil consequences, therefore, proper opportunity had to be granted to the petitioner as per Regulation 28 of Regulations, 1991. It is also alleged that as per Clause 31(1) of Regulations, 1991, the order has not been passed in public interest, but giving reference of Regulation 26(e) of Regulations, 1991, it is said to be an order of punishment, ergo, it is submitted by the petitioner that the order cannot be passed without conducting full fledged departmental enquiry. According to the petitioner, it has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying mind, therefore, it is sought to be quashed.

5. Although, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and stand taken by him has been seriously opposed and denied by the respondents. According to the respondents and return filed by them, the order has been passed by the competent authority as per the resolution of the Board, which comprises of Chairman, who is presiding the Board. As per the respondents, the 82nd Board Meeting of the Governing Body was held on 27.12.2023, in which, it was resolved that compulsory retirement should be carried out in public interest and as such, the decision was taken by the Board/Governing Body to retire the petitioner compulsorily in public interest. They have also filed copy of resolution dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure-R2/1). It is also submitted by the respondents that in a matter of compulsory retirement, there was no need to follow the principles of natural justice. They have also denied the stand taken by the petitioner alleging mala fide and also denied that the order of compulsory retirement is not in a public interest and it is under Regulation 26(e) of Regulations, 1991 by way of punishment. As per the respondents, in the present case, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired after considering his whole service record and there is no illegality in the action taken by the respondents because it was in public interest. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. In support of their stand, the respondents have filed several documents.

6. The relevant facts are briefly stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, which are as under:-

(6.1)

Respondent No.1 is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973 (for brevity the ‘Act, 1973’).

(6.2)

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Training Faculty Associate in respondent No.1 department vide order dated 12.04.1993 (Annexure-P/2). His services were confirmed after completing the probation period on 18.10.1995 (Annexure-P/3). He was receiving grade pay in excess of Rs.6500/- a