9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the legality of the order of compulsory retirement passed against an Executive Engineer, the grounds for compulsory retirement, and whether the order was punitive in nature. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Legality of Compulsory Retirement The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. The State of Gujarat passed an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 161(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. The respondent challenged this order before the High Court, which set it aside on the grounds of being punitive and lacking a reasonable opportunity for the respondent to be heard. Issue 2: Grounds for Compulsory Retirement The State argued that the respondent's services were no longer useful, and he had caused pecuniary losses to the government. The respondent contended that the order was illegal as it was based on specific allegations for which he was under suspension awaiting formal inquiry. Issue 3: Punitive Nature of the Order The Court referred to previous cases to establish principles regarding compulsory retirement. It emphasized that the order should be in public interest and not punitive. Adverse entries in the service record should be considered, and the order should not be a shortcut to avoid a departmental inquiry. Conclusion: The Court found that there were no adverse entries in the respondent's record, and the compulsory retirement was not recommended by the Review Committee. As the order was based on unproven allegations and lacked support from the service record, it was deemed to be passed for extraneous reasons. The appeal was dismissed, and the State was given three months to comply with the directions of the Division Bench regarding the respondent's benefits.
|
