Baldeo Krishna Bahl vs State of M.P. and others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

This writ petition is directed against order of State Administrative Tribunal dated 16-5-2001 passed in O.A. No. 942 of 1998.

Petitioner has been retired compulsorily from the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer on completion of 25 years qualifying service, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 by order dated 10-12-1998. His allegation is that order is arbitrary and unfair. He was promoted to Class II gazetted post in 1988 on the basis of work and conduct. He did not earn any adverse annual confidential report since 1988. Uncommunicated adverse confidential report can not be taken into consideration for compulsory retirement and rules of natural justice have not been followed by affording opportunity of hearing before passing the orders which is a necessary requirement before passing administrative orders with civil consequences. The Screening Committee did not act according to the administrative instructions, therefore, opinion has been formed on extraneous consideration. Consequently, it has not been passed in public interest.

Respondents state that Screening Committee examined the case of petitioner by taking into consideration his entire service record. He was retired in public interest in accordance with the policy. His work was not found satisfactory nor were his annual confidential reports up to the mark. He was imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment for disobedience and dereliction of duty in 1996. Order is not punitive, therefore, opportunity of bearing was not necessary.

Petitioner states that appeal against the imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment is pending. He was not only given promotion but also confirmed on 28-7-1997, therefore, it could not be said that he became dead-wood, as such to be retired compulsorily.

The State Administrative Tribunal examined the case but did not find favour with the submissions set up by the petitioner. It found that the Screening Committee headed by the Secretary of the Department examined records of Government servants including the petitioner having completed age of 55 years or 25 years of service as per F.R. 56 read with Rule 42 of the Pension Rules, 1976. Those who were not found suitable for continuance in service were required to be retired compulsorily. Advice of Committee was accepted and the petitioner was retired compulsorily alongwith a few others. Therefore, allegation of arbitrariness or mala fides has no basis. Service record and annual confidential reports coupled with punishment of stoppage of one increment imposed on the petitioner by order dated 20-10-1996 were also taken into consideration while considering the case of petitioner for compulsory retirement. These conclusions of Screening Committee were found correct by the Tribunal on perusal of record, therefore, all the contentions raised by the petitioner have been rejected.

In Union of India Vs. V.P. Seth [1994 SCC (L & S) 1952], it has been held that it is not necessary to hear the person before passing order of compulsory retirement since it is not penal in nature and that uncommunicated adverse remarks can also be taken into consideration for passing the orders. This decision confirms the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada [1993 SCC (L & S) 521]. Therefore, for passing order of compulsory retirement, the service record of the employee is to be taken into consideration to find whether he is suitable for retention in Government service and if it is found in the negative, order of compulsory retirement can be passed. Since the order of compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature, it is not necessary to hear the employee before passing of the order. This order can be passed by taking into consideration annual confidential report(s) which has not been communicated. As a matter of fact, utility of public servant is determining factor which can be assessed on the basis of performance during the past years. The latest decision on this question is reported in State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai Patel [AIR 2001 (SCW) 862]. Principles governing the compulsory retirement have been pointed out. Case of petitioner was examined in light of these principles. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference.

Consequently, we do not find any justification to differ with the view taken by the State Administrative Tribunal in this case. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

Writ Petition dismissed.