J.M. Shukla vs The State of M.P. and others

K.K. Trivedi, Judge

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 24.3.2007, by which he has been compulsory retired in public interest, under the provisions of Rule 42(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) as also the order dated 24.5.2007, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed, on the grounds that the service record of the petitioner was satisfactory, there was nothing available on record to show that the petitioner has become a deadwood and was liable to be chopped off. It is contended that the adverse confidential reports were never communicated to the petitioner. On the other hand, the service record of the petitioner was satisfactory and, therefore, he could not have been compulsory retired in the manner he has been. It is contended that when the representation was preferred in this respect, the same was not considered appropriately and the same was rejected. The petitioner has earlier called in question the notice of compulsory retirement in a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 3646/2007(S) in which all the facts were stated by the petitioner, but since after filing of the said writ petition, the petitioner was compulsory retired, the appeal was dismissed, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that the screening of the case of the petitioner was not appropriately done and, therefore, the report of the Screening Committee was not required to be taken into consideration. Erroneously the petitioner has been compulsory retired prematurely, allegedly in the public interest, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The respondents on receipt of the notice of the writ petition, have filed their return adopting the detailed return which they have filed in the Writ Petition No. 3646/2007(S). It is contended that overall consideration of the service record of the petitioner was done. The Screening Committee came to the conclusion that the service record of the petitioner was not upto the mark. The petitioner was graded as below average employee and, therefore, he was rightly compulsory retired. It is contended that since such a recommendation was rightly made in terms of the instructions issued by the State Government, the petitioner is not right in saying that his consideration was not rightly done by the Screening Committee and on the basis of such recommendation, the petitioner could not have been compulsory retired. It is, thus, contended that the entire claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the record.

Undisputedly, no procedure is prescribed by the State Government under Rule 42 of the Rules for consideration of the cases of persons who have to be compulsory retired in public interest. This has been considered by this Court that in case the procedure is not prescribed under the Rule, the State Government is competent enough to issue administrative instructions for the purposes of consideration of the cases of employees for compulsory retirement. The Government of Madhya Pradesh in General Administration Department has issued a circular in this respect on 24.8.2000, categorically providing that the cases of those employees who have completed 50 years of age or 20 years of qualifying services, were required to be considered for compulsory retirement. The guidelines have been prescribed to screen the cases of each such employee. The integrity and the honesty of the employee is to be adjudged by examining the complete service record. Deterioration in discharge of duties on account of age and deterioration in the physical health is the second criteria. The entire service is to be considered and it is to be seen whether the employee concerned has ever been given the adverse entries or not. The overall service record of the employee should be of ''Good'' category and there should not be any downgrading in the working. The Screening Committee report has been placed on record. The Screening Committee constituted under the chairmanship of Silk Commissioner had duly considered the cases of all those who have completed 20 years of service or 50 years of age. As far as the petitioner is concerned, when his entire service record was seen, in the last five years Annual Confidential Reports, there were two adverse entries recorded in his confidential reports of the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. In the year 2000-2001, the quality of the work of the petitioner was average. In overall consideration of ten years of service, it was found that right from very beginning or even in the midstream of service, the service record of the petitioner was nothing but average. For this purpose, Annual Confidential Reports of the year 1986-1987, 1990-1991, 1993-1994, 1995-1996, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 were examined specifically and it was found that the same were graded as Average. On the overall consideration, it was found that the petitioner was lacking in accepting the duties with responsibilities. It was reported in the Annual Confidential Report that the petitioner was not capable of taking decision on his own. In overall consideration, case of the petitioner was that either he was an average or below the average employee. It was found that the petitioner was given warning, once was punished with an expectation that he will improve his working, but there was no improvement in his working at all and, as such, the petitioner was graded to be an employee not worthy of keeping in the employment of the State Government any longer. In view of this, the recommendation was made and, accordingly, a notice of compulsory retirement was issued to the petitioner.

It is the trite law that employer is the best authority to adjudge the working of a particular person. Here the employer in the case in hand, has not only considered the entire working of the petitioner, but has categorically reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was not worthy to be retained in the employment any longer. Of course, in certain cases, it has been considered by the Courts of law that compulsory retirement should not be done merely because of one or two stray adverse entry, but it is also true that the Courts of law have affirmed the authority of compulsory retirement of an employee. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, the Apex Court has given the guidelines to consider the case of compulsory retirement of a Government employee. It has been held by the Apex Court that in case the overall service record is considered and it is found after due consideration by the Committee that an employee is not worth keeping in the employment any longer, he could be compulsory retired. Of course, the compulsory retirement should not be ordered mechanically without there being any justified recommendations. The service record of the petitioner itself speaks about his own working capacity. If the petitioner is not to be treated as a deadwood, who else would be a deadwood. The complete working of the petitioner as has been referred herein above, will indicate that he was not a fit person to be kept in the employment. Rightly the provisions of compulsory retirement was exercised in the case of the petitioner and he has been rightly compulsory retired. It will not be out of place to mention here that compulsory retirement in public interest is not to be treated as a punishment. The employee concerned is entitled to all the benefits which he is otherwise entitled to get after his superannuation, on completion of the complete tenure. The only difference is that the quantum of pension and other retrial dues because of the curtailment of the length of service will be differently fixed. If any loss is caused to the petitioner on this count, he is to thank himself because of his own working as the compulsory retirement is to be done only on account of such improper and unsatisfactory service record of the petitioner. Consequently, there is no force in the writ petition. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.