Vimal Kumar Pandey vs State of M.P.

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This petition was originally filed as O.A. No. 347/2000 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and has been transmitted to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Engineer (E/M) at the relevant time, had visited the Tribunal by way of filing of this original application ventilating his grievance against the order dated 03.01.2000 by which it was communicated to the petitioner that in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, Bench at Gwalior, after re-screening the case of the petitioner it was found that the order of his compulsory retirement so issued on earlier occasion was to be affirmed on the ground that earlier order of compulsory retirement was issued against the petitioner on 01.10.1997, which order was sought to be challenged in O.A. No. 855/1998. The Tribunal after considering the law laid-down by it in an original application filed by similarly situated person, came to the conclusion that since the screening committee constituted for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement was the same and the said committee was found to be invalidly constituted by the Tribunal and it was held that on recommendation of the said committee, compulsory retirement order could not have been issued, the original application of the petitioner was allowed. The said order was not challenged anywhere in case of the petitioner but in one of the case decided at Gwalior Bench of the Tribunal, the writ petition was filed before this Court, Bench at Gwalior, by the State Government. The Division Bench of this Court considered the law laid-down by the Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Chand Awadhiya Vs. State of M.P. & others (O.A. No. 3061/1997, decided on 20.03.1998), on the basis of which various cases were decided including the case of the present petitioner as also one B.L. Kaul and others and the Division Bench of this Court reached to the conclusion that there was no wrong committed by the Tribunal in holding that the committee was not rightly constituted. However, the Division Bench of this Court has made an observation that instead of rushing to the Court challenging the well reasoned order of the Tribunal, the State Government could have constituted a fresh screening committee, could have considered the cases of all those persons and could have retired them if they were found fit for such retirement. It is contended that in view of this decision of the Division Bench of this Court, screening of the case of the petitioner was to be done afresh and a fresh decision was required to be taken but he could not have been compulsorily retired by inserting the life in an order, which was already quashed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law.

It is further contended by the petitioner that the retrospective effect of an order of compulsory retirement was again considered by the Tribunal and in one of the cases of Laxmi Chand Awadhiya, again a decision was given by the Tribunal that the order of compulsory retirement could be prospective and not retrospective. Such an order was also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court but by that time since the Tribunal was at the verge of closer, instead of remitting back the matter to the Tribunal, this Court has examined the reports of the screening committee and has given opinion in such a case in which recommendation for compulsory retirement was given dehors the rules or law laid-down by the Apex Court and has quashed the recommendations as also the order of compulsory retirement. It is contended that since now the Tribunal is not in existence, this Court would be required to examine the recommendations of the screening committee and petitioner would also be entitled to the similar benefits as was extended in the case of Laxmi Chand Awadhiya (supra). It is also contended that there was no material available to compulsory retire the petitioner as his service record was satisfactory and at any rate, he could not have been graded as a deadwood, which was required to be chopped of. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law on this count also and is liable to be quashed.

Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner, the respondents have contended that in terms of the policy made by the State Government, the case of the petitioner was considered. It was found that the petitioner is one, who was having unsatisfactory service record and, therefore, recommendations were made for his compulsory retirement. Such a recommendation of the committee was found faulted with by the Tribunal only because of the constitution of the screening committee on first occasion and such an order was quashed. Since the Division Bench of this Court has made the observation, re-screening was done after properly constituting the committee and the said committee has also recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner affirming the earlier recommendation of the Committee, therefore, the order impugned has been issued. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and his petition is liable to be dismissed.

The record of the screening committee has been placed before this Court for consideration. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Placing his reliance in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Chand Awadhiya and Others, , learned Senior Counsel has contended that well considered principles of service jurisprudence were taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court and in para 16 and 17 of the report specific findings were recorded. It is contended that since the Division Bench of this Court has taken note of the principle laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, , and certain guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court and it is held that it was necessary to consider the cases in the light of the principle laid-down by the Apex Court for examining the necessity of compulsory retirement of a Govt. servant under the Pension Rules or under the Fundamental Rules but this was not properly done. It is contended that in case of the present petitioner, baring for few ACRs, the entire service record of the petitioner was satisfactory but this was not taken note of by the committee, on the other hand, cursorily it was said that the petitioner is required to be compulsory retired for the age old entries made in his confidential reports. His recent past was not looked into, which has resulted in improper consideration of the case of the petitioner. Only this much was said that in the ACRs of the petitioner for the 15 years career, there were five average and adverse remarks. However, the recent past of the service of the petitioner was not looked into where he has earned good remarks, such as Very Good. If the said remarks would have been taken into consideration, there was no downgrading in the ACRs and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been compulsory retired.

Though such a fact is not disputed but learned Govt. Advocate has placed on record the entire ACR folder of the petitioner, which starts with the ACR for the year 1973. In that year nothing adverse was found. It was rather found that subsequently it was said that the petitioner was laborious, intelligent and punctual. The adverse part communicated to him was not of much importance. In the year 1974 he was graded as a good officer. In the years 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979, he was graded as good officer, most eligible to be granted permission to cross efficiency bar. In the year 1984-1985 he was graded as good. In the year 1986 he was graded as average and in the year 1987 again he was graded as good. Only in the year 1988 he was given an adverse remark, which was communicated. In the year 1989 he was graded as average. In the year 1990 he was graded as very good. In the year 1992-1993 he was graded average. In the year 1993-94 and 1996-1997, 1997-1998 he was graded as very good and good. From this service record, how could it be said that only for one ACR of the year where he was graded as below average, that too in the year 1988 the petitioner would become a deadwood and would not be entitled to continue in service whereas in the next year the ACR of the petitioner was upgraded and in the recent past he was graded as good and very good. From this analysis of the service record, it is clear that the committee has not rightly considered the claim of the petitioner and has wrongly recommended for his compulsory retirement.

Placing reliance in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, , learned Govt. Advocate had tried to emphasize that since there was one adverse entry, it was enough to hold that the petitioner was not a good officer to be continued in the employment and he could have been chopped of by his compulsory retirement. With great respect it is to be held that aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is distinguishable in the present case. Firstly, the aforesaid law laid-down by the Apex Court is in the case of Judicial Officer. Secondly, the single entry was touching the integrity of the said officer and, therefore, the Apex Court has reached to the conclusion that it was enough to compulsory retire a Judicial Officer. Such is not the case in hand. The single entry made in respect of the petitioner is not touching the integrity of the petitioner, on the other hand so far as the integrity part is concerned, there is nothing adverse in the ACR of the petitioner. The adverse part was only slackness in working and nothing else. Even in that entry it was categorically said that the integrity of the petitioner was beyond doubt. Thus, the case relied by the respondent is distinguishable and only on the basis of such a finding of the Apex Court, the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is not to be upheld.

This Court recently has examined the cases of compulsory retirement in various aspects. In the case of G. R. Dhupar Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , it has been categorically held that in the case of Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) the Apex Court has categorically laid-down that the overall service record is required to be considered and for one or few stale confidential reports communicated or un-communicated, an employee/officer is not to be adjudged as a deadwood, unfit to remain in service in the public interest and is not required to be compulsorily retired. The Division Bench of this Court has also taken note of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) and had held in paragraph 19 of the report that there are eight points of consideration prescribed by the Apex Court and if satisfactory service record is ignored, only because of few stale adverse entries, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be affirmed.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner as communicated on 3rd January, 2000 (Annexure A-1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation by now. He will be treated to be in service till his actual date of superannuation and will get 50% of the salary and allowances of the post from the date of his compulsory retirement till the date of his superannuation. The petitioner will also get benefit of revision of his retiral dues and all the arrears of salary and retiral dues after refixation of pension be paid to him after due calculation within a period of four months from the date of this order. The petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to cost.