$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.313/2014 & CM No.6626/2014
Date of Decision: 30th April, 2014
V.K. SHAMRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pradeep Misra, Adv. with Mr.Daleep
K. Dhayani, Adv.
versus
STATE FARMS CORPORATION OF INDIA
LIMITED & ANR. .......Respondent
Through Mr.C.N. Sreekumar & Ms.Resmitha R.
Chandran, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) CM No.6626/2014 (For condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
This application is allowed.
LPA No.313/2014
2. The petitioner was appointed as Chief Agriculture on 30th November, 1990 at the headquarters of respondent no.1-State Farms Corporation of India Limited in New Delhi. He attained the age of 55 years in the year 2001. In consonance with Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules, after his promotion to the post of Chief Agriculture LPA No.313/2014 Page 1 of 6 in the year 1990, on 25th January, 2001, the Board of Directors of the State Farms Corporation of India Limited undertook the review of the performance of the petitioner. In exercise of power conferred by Regulation 52 of the Staff Regulation of the respondent no.1 read with Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner having attained the age of 55 years, a decision was taken to proceed in the matter of his retirement from the said post. The order records that the Board of Directors had reviewed the total service record of the petitioner. P. The decision of the Board of Directors to retire him with immediate effect was conveyed to the petitioner by an order dated 29 th January, 2001. This order was accompanied by two cheques for the total sum of Rs.63,234/- which was equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for a period of three months calculated at the last drawn rate immediately before his retirement.
3. To facilitate the present consideration, we may usefully set out the Staff Regulation 52 of the State Farms Corporation of India Limited which reads as follows:-
"52. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations, the appointing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so, have the absolute right to retire any Corporation employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:-
(1) If he is in category I or category II post:LPA No.313/2014 Page 2 of 6
(a) in case he had entered service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years.
(b) in case he had entered service after attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 55 years.
(II) If he is in category III post after he has attained the age of 55 years OR after he has completed 30 years service.
(2) Any employee may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority retire from the service of the Corporation after he has attained the age of 55 years, if he is in category I or category II post and had entered service before attaining the age of 35 years and in all other cases after he has attained the age of 55 years.
Provided that:-
(a) Nothing in this Regulation shall apply to category IV employees who entered service on or before 23.7.1966 and 27.11.1966.
(b) It shall be open to the Appointment Authority to withhold permission to an employee under suspension who seeks to retire under this Regulation."
4. Fundamental Rule 56(j) of the Staff Regulations has been also placed on record by the respondents which reads thus:-
"56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months‟ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:
(i) If he is, in Group "A" or Group "B" service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before LPA No.313/2014 Page 3 of 6 attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;
(ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years."
5. The petitioner challenged the order dated 29th January, 2001 by way of WP (C) No.856 of 2001. In the meantime, the impugned order was duly implemented and the petitioner stands retired in terms of the order dated 29th January, 2001. So far as the writ petition is concerned, it remained pending in this court till it was heard and finally decided by the impugned order dated 5th December, 2013.
6. As noted by the learned Single Judge, the court's power of judicial review of action taken by an employer under Rule 56(j) of the Regulation is extremely limited. The scrutiny by the learned Single Judge has been confined to the consideration as to whether the action taken against the employee/petitioner was without basis or mala fide. The learned Single Judge has carefully analysed the records which were scrutinized by the respondents prior to issuance of the order dated 29 th January, 2001 and agreed with the assessment of the respondent that the performance of the petitioner did not merit his continuation in service.
7. Before this court, nothing has been pointed out which would enable this court to take a view that the impugned order by the writ court or the order dated 29th January, 2001 is based on no material. The order dated LPA No.313/2014 Page 4 of 6 5th December, 2013 has tabulated the performance of the petitioner and has concluded that the seed production targets for every year from 1994- 95 till 1999-2000 was not met. It is not disputed that the petitioner was heading the team which was responsible for the same. Additionally, on a consideration of the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner, it is to be noted that the petitioner's performance was consistently evaluated as "average".
8. The impugned order also records that with regard to the balance sheet for the year 1988-89, the petitioner had reflected profit of Rs.2,00,000/- as having been earned by the respondent no.1 therein. On assessment by the auditors, this was in fact reduced to a loss of Rs.30.68 lakhs having been sustained by the respondent. The respondent thereupon concluded that the petitioner was found to be manipulating performance figures with the others.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the material which was placed before the Board of Directors was wholly insufficient for it to conclude that the appellant was not fit for retention in service. We find that on similar plea having been raised before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has carefully analysed the material which was before the respondent no.1 before it passed the order. The material which was examined by the Board of Directors before arriving at the conclusion was communicated to the petitioner by the order dated 29th January, 2001 LPA No.313/2014 Page 5 of 6
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a chargesheet issued to the petitioner with regard to the respondent no.1 running into continuous losses when he was working as a director. It appears that the petitioner has filed a separate writ petition with regard to the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against him. This writ petition is stated to be pending. We refrain from commenting on the same as this matter would be considered in these independent proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th December, 2013 cannot be faulted. The present challenge is misconceived.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE (DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE APRIL 30, 2014 aa LPA No.313/2014 Page 6 of 6