9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Compliance with Rule 8 Note (1) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 in the case of compulsory premature retirement. 2. Allegations of mala fide issuance of the retirement notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Supreme Court questioned the compliance of the impugned notice-cum-order of compulsory premature retirement with Rule 8 Note (1) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950. The respondent, a government servant, was retired from service after completing 30 years of qualifying service. The High Court allowed the respondent's petition, stating that the retirement was not in strict compliance with Rule 8 Note (1) as the exact reasons for retirement were not recorded in writing. The State Government appealed this decision, arguing that the noting in the file of the respondent adequately recorded the reason for retirement, which was impairment of efficiency. The Supreme Court analyzed the language of Note (1) and concluded that the recorded reason of impairment of efficiency sufficed for compliance with the rule. The Court emphasized that the formation of the opinion not to level a formal charge of inefficiency was not an additional reason required to be stated. Therefore, the retirement notice was held to be in strict compliance with Rule 8 Note (1). 2. The respondent also alleged mala fide issuance of the retirement notice, claiming harassment by a superior. The respondent's counsel contended that the retirement decision was influenced by mala fide intentions and pointed to past grievances against the superior. However, the Supreme Court examined the respondent's confidential reports and adverse remarks dating back several years, indicating a persistent deterioration in efficiency. The retirement decision was based on an overall consideration of the respondent's record by the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, not solely influenced by the superior in question. The Court rejected the mala fide allegations, stating that the retirement decision was made based on the respondent's performance record over the years. As no other grounds were upheld, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition.
|
