9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder suspension on 22.5.1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was initiated against him alleging that he had committed acts of misuse of power in connection with the purchase of Tarpauline. While the respondent was continuing under suspension, the Govt. of Gujarat passed an order of compulsory retirement by invoking Clause (aa) (i) (1) of Rule 161 (1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, with effect from 13.2.1987. The respondent was due to retire on superannuation by the end of August 1988, his date of birth being 17.8.1930. In the order of compulsory retirement, it was stated that the case relating to continuance of the respondent in Govt. service beyond the age of 50 and 55 years was reviewed. The respondent challenged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cases, had occasion to consider the law relating to compulsory retirement and has laid down various principles. In State of Orissa Ors. vs. Ram Chandra Das, this Court held in paragraph 3 of the judgment as follows: It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such decision to retire a governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood Controller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. 7. In Baikuntha Nath Das Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada Anr. (1992)ILLJ784SC , following the decision in Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha (1970)IILLJ284SC , this Court held thus : (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma or any suggestion of misbehavior. (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. The circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. 8. In Allahabad Bank Officers' Association Anr. vs . Allahabad Bank Ors., this Court, in paragraph 5 of the judgment on page 508, held as under: The power to compulsorily retire a government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration. .... .... While misconduct and inefficiency are facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orily or not in the year 1981, as it would be an act bordering on perversity to dig out old files to find out some material to make an order against an officer. 11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reasons. As the authorities did not wait for the conclusion of the enquiry and decided to dispense with the services of the respondent merely on the basis of the allegations which had not been proved and in the absence of any adverse entries in his service record to support the order of compulsory retirement, we are of the view that the Division Bench was right in holding that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. We find no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, three months' time is given to the appellant-State to comply with the directions of the Division Bench, failing which the respondent would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of the pecuniary benefits due to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
