Dr. Mrs. Pratibha vs State Of Maharashtra
2011 Latest Caselaw 11 Bom

    wp663.94.odt                                         1                                     Judgment



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                                  
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                         
                               WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 1994.




                                                                        
    Dr. Mrs. Pratibha W/o. Prabhakar Gulhane,
    aged 53 years, Occu. Service (Retired)
    R/o. 4-A, Tilaknagar, Amravati Road, 
    Nagpur.  




                                                        
                                                                                     ....PETITIONER.
                                    ig        // VERSUS //

    1. State of Maharashtra, through the
                                  
       Secretary, Public Health Department,
       Mantralaya, Bombay - 32. 

    2. Union of India, through Secretary,
       Ministry of Law, Government of India,
          


       Department of Personnel and Training,
       New Delhi. 
       



                                                                                    ....RESPONDENTS.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. P.H.Gulhane, Advocate for Petitioner.





    Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              CORAM:            S.A.BOBDE AND
                                                M.N. GILANI, JJ.





                              DATED :     OCTOBER 21, 2011.



    JUDGMENT ( Per : M.N.Gilani, J.)

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has

been filed by the petitioner seeking relief of declaration that the provisions of

Articles 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution vis-à-vis provisions of Section 5(2),

wp663.94.odt 2 Judgment

5(4)(d), proviso 6(2)(b), (bb), (c), 6(3)(d), 6(3)(A), 17, 28, 29 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are ultra-vires the constitution, to quash

and set aside judgment dated 19.01.1994 passed by Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in O.A. No.977 of 1991 and also to

quash the notice dated 25.05.1990 issued by respondent No.1 directing the

petitioner's premature retirement under the provisions of the Maharashtra

Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and further to reinstate the petitioner as

Deputy Director of Health Services and allow her to continue in the said post

till she retires on superannuation with all future benefits accruable to her

including promotion to the higher post.

2. The petitioner entered into health services of the State of

Maharashtra in the year 1968 as Medical Officer-Class-II. In the year 1974

she was promoted as Medical Officer-Class-I and further promoted as Deputy

Director (Health Services) w.e.f. 18.11.1982. It is averred that the

respondents denied her promotion to the post of Deputy Director and

therefore, she was required to approach this Court by filing writ petition.

The special leave petition filed by the respondents against the judgment of

this court came to be dismissed and therefore, the respondents were bound

to implement this decision with retrospective effect. It is her case that

because of she approaching this Court, the respondents developed revengeful

attitude against her and for one or other reason, they started harassing her.

In her service record during the years 1983-84, 1985-86, 1987-88, 1988-89

and 1989-90 deliberately adverse entries were made. After she resumed as

Deputy Director on 3rd September, 1987, all these adverse entries were

wp663.94.odt 3 Judgment

communicated to her. The representation submitted by her except for the

year 1987-88 which was partly allowed, rest were rejected. Adverse entries

made in her record were nothing but a camouflage to ensure her premature

retirement. Against the order of the premature retirement she moved

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal"). The petitioner,

while canvassing her case that the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal

is wrong, also proceeded to level allegations that the learned members of the

Tribunal being biased and prejudiced against her. The reason cited is, the

husband of the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3533/1993 in this Court

challenging the appointments of all the members of the Tribunal including

the learned members who delivered the impugned judgment against her.

4. As regards the right of the respondents to order her premature

retirement it is submitted that the Special Review Committee, constituted to

consider the cases of employees for their continuation in service, did not

observe the principles of natural justice. The learned Tribunal did not rely

upon the various decisions of the Apex Court cited by the petitioner to

advance her case. The learned Tribunal was not just, fair and reasonable in

deciding her application. The finding recorded by the Special Review

Committee that the petitioner is liable to be retired prematurely in public

interest is perverse, unwarranted and against the norms of service

jurisprudence. In fact, major punishment is meted out to her without making

any inquiry which is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution.

5. The petitioner has also challenged the provisions of Rule 10(4)

of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (in short "Pension

wp663.94.odt 4 Judgment

Rules") on the ground that it is discriminatory and confers unfettered

discretionary powers on the appointing authority. It allows one person to

remain in service till he completes 30 years of qualifying service and at the

same time it provides for retiring other person even at the age of 50 years.

Therefore, the petitioner states that the provisions of the Pension Rules are

violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

6. The petitioner attributes malafides to the then Minister in-

charge of the Health Department on the ground that at her instance he was

prosecuted and the matter was subjudice in the High Court when the

impugned notice was issued.

7. As regards adverse entries in her confidential record it is

pleaded that there were no advance communications of deficiencies before

the entry of the same were taken in the service record. It is further stated

that the adverse entries were communicated at a belated stage. She also

questions respondent's rejecting her representation against the adverse

entries. According to her, to justify these adverse entries, the relevant office

record ought to have been produced before the Tribunal. It is her case that

in view of the patent flaws pointed out above the learned Tribunal should

not have relied upon the report of the Special Review Committee and ought

to have quashed the impugned notice.

8. By way of additional pleadings the petitioner brought to the

notice of this Court subsequent events in the matter of the decision rendered

by the learned Tribunal on 15.04.2010 in T.A.No. 3872/1991 (W.P.

No.214/1990) quashing her supersession and granting her promotion to the

wp663.94.odt 5 Judgment

post of Joint Director of Health Services w.e.f. 23.01.1990. It may be noted

that this decision has been challenged by the respondents before this Court

in Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2010 and is being disposed of simultaneously

with this petition. Based on the subsequent decision of the learned Tribunal,

it is submitted that before she was given premature retirement she was

deemed to be promoted w.e.f. 23.01.1990 to the post of Joint Director of

Health Services. In that light of the matter, the impugned notice dated

25.05.1990 directing her premature retirement becomes void ab-initio.

9.

The respondents filed reply denying all the adverse allegations

made in the petition. As regards adverse entries appearing in the confidential

record of the petitioner the say of the respondents is as under :

".... It is submitted that, since the year 1983-84 to the year 1989-90 except the year 1986-87 the petitioner has

earned adverse remarks in her Annual Confidential Report. It is submitted that, the Annual Confidential

Report for the year 1983-84 and 1985-86 were communicated to her on 8th August, 1987. The adverse Confidential Report for the year 1987-88 were communicated to the petitioner. She had replied against

the same on 28.11.1988. The another representation was made against the adverse Annual Reports for the year, 1988-89 on 4.11.1989. None of these adverse remarks were expunged. The petitioner had approached the Minister Incharge of the Public Health Department

where there was no positive response. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent a representation to the Governor of State which was also not in her favour."

10. It is the case of the respondents that under the Pension Rules,

the Special Review Committee consisting of Senior Administrative Officer

was constituted. After the notice was served upon the petitioner, there was

round of litigation initiated by the petitioner by approaching the learned

Tribunal and also this Court. After conclusion of this litigation she was

wp663.94.odt 6 Judgment

retired w.e.f. 20.12.1991. The respondents justified their action on the

ground of adverse entries appearing in the confidential records of the

petitioner. The minutes of Special Review Committee, their recommendations

to the high power establishment board, are produced by the respondents for

the perusal of this Court. The allegations of bias and malafides attributed to

the respondents as well as members of the Special Review Committee are

vehemently denied.

11. The respondents while refuting the allegations put-forth the

case that the performance of the petitioner as Deputy Director of Health

Services was much below the average. The adverse entries in her

confidential record is true reflection of her performance. Only because the

adverse entries were made in her confidential record the allegations of bias,

ill-will and malice have been levelled by the petitioner. The respondents

have also reproduced details of the adverse entries made in the service

record right from the year 1987-88, 1989-90 to justify premature retirement

of the petitioner in 'public interest'. According to the respondents, the

Special Review Committee and thereafter the establishment board had taken

conscious decision, as such, the order of premature retirement is in

accordance with law. Lastly, it is submitted that the decision rendered by the

learned Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with on any count.

12. The learned Tribunal, making following observations,

proceeded to dismiss the application :

"In the result after having throughly analysed the situation applicant stands in, on the strength of the relevant circumstances that surround her position in the present case and on a careful examination of the laws

wp663.94.odt 7 Judgment

and rules applicable with due scrutiny for their validity and also utility in the matter of scanning the controversy

confronting us in the present case, we are of the opinion that the action taken by the respondent State

Government resulting in a premature compulsory retirement of the applicant by applying the provisions of Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 is quite in accord with law, without any breach of the recognised and established principles

evolved for the discipline and efficiency to be maintained in the government administration in harmony with the basic law of the land, that is, the Constitution of India, within whose frame work all the organis of the State are

required to function. ....".

13. Judicial and quasi judicial forums are the creatures of the

statute to redress grievances of the aggrieved person. Litigant seeking relief

by invoking jurisdiction of such forums need to have faith and belief in the

working of the system. The litigant's faith and belief is foundation of justice

delivery system. There are instances, of course, very few, when litigant at the

inception is apprehensive about the justice which would be meted out to him

at the hands of a particular forum. In such circumstances, he is not without

remedy. We have a system which takes care of such situation giving liberty

to the litigant to get his matter transferred to other court or other forum. Our

experience shows that such situation arises very rarely. However, after

submitting to the jurisdiction of the forum, levelling allegations and casting

aspersions on the Presiding Officers particularly when the decision has gone

against him, is reprehensible and such practice needs to be deprecated.

14. We have made these observations as the petitioner in so many

words and in different paras of his petition questioned impartiality and

fairness of the learned members of the Tribunal. In paragraph 9 it is averred

that "Members of the Tribunal have predetermined to dismiss the contempt

wp663.94.odt 8 Judgment

petition then there was no point in advancing the argument only for the sake of

arguments when they were already biased and prejudiced against the counsel

for the petitioner as he had filed Writ Petition No.3533 of 1993 in the High

Court challenging their own appointments as such being illegal." Again similar

allegations are repeated. It is stated that the learned members of the

Tribunal heard the matter with bias mind and dismissed the original

application. In paragraph 29 it is stated that "Possibility of personal bias

cannot also be ruled out as the petitioner has to be a wife of her counsel. In

view of this the petitioner reasonably apprehends that bias attributable to the

Members of the Tribunal might have operated against her in the final decision

i.e. Judgment Dt. 19.1.94." Again in para 43 similar allegations have been

repeated.

15. It is discernible from the order of the Tribunal that whatever

documents relevant to the case and available with the respondents were sent

for and inspection of the same was given to the counsel for the petitioner.

What is expected of judicial or quasi-judicial forum is to offer an opportunity

of being heard to the litigant. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was

not heard. The learned members of the Tribunal in their wisdom reached to

the conclusion as stated above. We, therefore, find nothing on the record nor

it has been demonstrated to point out that the learned members of the

Tribunal bore personal grudge against the petitioner or her counsel and this

weighed with them to arrive at the decision. Here, it is relevant to note that

Writ Petition No.3533 of 1993 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and which is stated to be cause of discontent amongst learned members of

wp663.94.odt 9 Judgment

the Tribunal, has been dismissed by this Court on 17th February, 1998

without any relief to the petitioner.

16. While impugning the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has

questioned the constitutionality of the various provisions of the

Administrative Tribunals Act. This appears to have been based on the

ground that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution has been taken away. Second ground of attack is the

qualification prescribed for the post of Vice-Chairman (A). It is stated that

for such post person having ten years standing at bar would be more

suitable. While arguing the petition, these grounds were not agitated and

therefore, there is no need to consider the same. Suffice it to say that in S.P.

Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in (1987)1 SCC 124 these

challenges were dealt with and the Supreme Court suggested few

amendments to rectify the defects appearing in the statute. Thereafter the

decision in case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in (1997) 3

SCC 261 has concluded the issue of constitutional validity of the provisions

of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

17. In the petition one of the grounds is regarding constitutional

validity of Rule 10(4) of the Pension Rules. This is on the ground that it is

discriminatory and voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution in the sense that

by applying Rule 10(4) an employee can be made to retire at the age of 50

years, however, other similarly situated gets full tenure and till one

completes the age of 30 years. Although, this ground is incorporated in the

petition, was not canvassed by the learned counsel while arguing the case.

wp663.94.odt 10 Judgment

Suffice it, to say that this provision is on statute book since decades and is

one of the service conditions which is binding on the employee. In the

Central Service Rules and other service rules of the local bodies, government

undertakings, it is seen that appointing authority / employer has retained

with it right of review and power of retiring the employee at a particular age

in "public interest". We, therefore, find no merit in the ground incorporated

in the petition.

18. In Swaran Singh Chand Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and

others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 758 after relying upon the earlier decision

in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Umedbhai Patel (2001)3 SCC 314 the

principles which are required to be followed in the matter of compulsory

retirement were 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 due regard to the entire service record of the officer.

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record

shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.

(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure."

wp663.94.odt 11 Judgment

19. Now, we proceed to examine whether the order of premature

retirement is on the ground of non-application of mind, malafides or want of

material particulars. We shall also examine whether it was passed as a

shortcut to avoid departmental enquiry or in other words is it merely a

camouflage, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this

context, it is necessary to reproduce the contents of the notice dated

25.05.1990.

"N O T I C E ig WHEREAS under Sub-Rule (4) Clause (a)

(i)(ii) below Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 an appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire any Gazetted Government servant

:

(i) if he entered Government service under any Government in India, before attaining the age of thirty five years after he has attained the age of fifty years.

(ii) In any other case, after he has attained the age of

fifty five years;

by giving him notice of three months in writing, if such

authority is of the opinion that it is in public interest so to do;

AND WHEREAS, Dr. (Smt.) P.P. Gulhane, Deputy Director of Health Services (Family Welfare)

Pune, a Gazetted Government servant, has now attained the age of 50 years ;

AND WHERAS the Government is of the opinion that it is in public interest to retire the said Dr. (Smt.) P.P. Gulhane.

NOW THEREFORE, in pursuance of sub-

rule (4) clause (a)(i) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 the Government hereby gives notice to the said Dr. (Smt.) P.P. Gulhane that she shall stand retired from Government service on the 24th August, 1990 or the day immediately following the date of expiry of the period of three months commencing on the date of service of this notice on her, whichever is later.

By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra."

wp663.94.odt 12 Judgment

20. It is thus, obvious that the contents of the notice are totally

innocuous. There is nothing in the said notice from which it can be inferred

that it casts stigma or aspersion on the conduct of the petitioner. In case of

Swaran Singh Chand (supra) there were disciplinary cases against the

petitioner. In an inquiry the minor punishment was inflicted upon him. After

considering this, the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 observed that,

undisputedly, therefore, not only minor punishment inflicted on him had

been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, but it was

also based, inter alia, on the premises that his integrity was doubtful.

Further the Supreme Court observed that the directions contained in a

circular dated 14.08.1981 (issued by Punjab Government) were not complied

with and therefore, it amounts to malice in law. The facts of the present case

stand on different footings.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the reply

filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. According to him, this reply suggests

that the order of premature retirement was nothing but a punishment

inflicted upon the petitioner on the ground of lack of integrity, efficiency,

hard work, lack of coordination etc. In fact, this is not so. The Reply, which

has been filed in the year 2009 merely reflects annual confidential reports

which were considered by the Special Review Committee. In the matter of

compulsory retirement one of the principles laid down is order has to be

passed by the Government forming opinion that it is in the 'public interest' to

retire a government servant compulsorily and has to be on the subjective

satisfaction. This follows that the subjective satisfaction of the government

wp663.94.odt 13 Judgment

has to be based on consideration of the service record of an employee.

22. In Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy,

reported in (1992) 2 SCC 317, it was observed that "subjective satisfaction of

the Review Committee is not open to the Courts interference in absence of

malafides." In that case the review was made by the High Power Committee.

The respondents' earlier record was throughout good except two adverse

remarks of latest years. It was held that such material was sufficient for

arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the committee. In absence of any

material showing malafides, perversity, arbitrariness or unreasonableness the

order retiring an employee is not vulnerable to challenge.

23. The learned Tribunal extensively quoted adverse entries

appearing in the service record of the petitioner. The petitioner quoted all

these adverse entries in para 5 of the petition. It is also pleaded by the

petitioner that representation against all those adverse entries were made

and except the adverse entry for the year 1987-88 which was partially

expunged, rest of the representations were rejected.

24. Special Review Committee, which was constituted to consider

the case of the petitioner, was consisted of :

            (i)      Additional Chief Secretary,
            (ii)     Principal Secretary (General Administration Department), 
            (iii)    Principal Secretary (Public Works Department),
            (iv)     Two members of the Establishment Board

of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary and Secretary.

(v) Secretary (Health) was also present as special invitee.

The minutes reveal that the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for

wp663.94.odt 14 Judgment

the year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were considered. After

undertaking onerous exercise the committee recommended to the

government accordingly.

25. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the

adverse entries have been belatedly made to block her promotion and to

retire her compulsorily. There was delay in communication of the adverse

remarks. Before adverse remarks were made in her service record she was

not given any opportunity to amend or rectify her mistakes. We clarify that

there is no practice or rule of issuing show cause notice to an employee

before passing adverse remarks against her. In the hierarchy of the

administrative set-up the work of subordinate is supervised by his superior.

It may happen that the superior may in writing or orally bring to the notice

of his subordinate the flaws in his working noticed by his superior. However,

if this is not done, the adverse entries made in the service record at the end

of the particular year are not vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the decision in Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere Vs. Union of India,

reported in AIR 1989 SC 1431. It was the case of termination of service of

an ad hoc employee on the ground of unsuitability. The Supreme Court

observed that :

"If services of an ad hoc employee is to be discontinued on ground of unsuitability it is proper and necessary that he should be told in advance that his work and performance are not up to the mark."

Next decision relied upon is in case of Amar Kant Vs. State of

Bihar, reported in AIR 1984 SC 531. The Supreme Court suggested that the

proper procedure in the matter of entry of adverse remarks in confidential

wp663.94.odt 15 Judgment

roll would be to make remarks in the roll in presence of officer concerned,

with right to make representation to higher authorities and second is to serve

copy of such remarks on the officer before submission of the confidential roll.

These were guidelines issued by the Supreme Court to be followed by the

governments and the local bodies. In that case it was found that the adverse

remarks were not communicated to the employee and subsequently it was

expunged by the State Government. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that

the decision of the selection committee was vitiated. The facts of the present

case are different. Whatever the adverse entries made in the confidential roll

of the petitioner were communicated. Of course, same were communicated

at a belated stage. However, the representations made against the adverse

entries were ultimately turned down.

26. The learned counsel for the appellant empathetically argued

that all the adverse entries have been made are without foundation and

should not have been made against her. The prayer in this petition is divided

into (i) to (viii) clauses. Nowhere it is averred that the adverse entries made

in her confidential record be expunged or quashed. Even otherwise also, we

find that all the adverse remarks were not passed by the single reporting

officer. They are spread over to 5 to 6 years and must have been recorded by

the different officers. The decision in the case of Dev Dutta Vs. Union of

India, reported at 2008 SCW 3486 relied upon by the petitioner does not

help her case. As has been stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition the

adverse entries were communicated to her and the representations which she

had sent against these adverse entries were rejected. The learned counsel

wp663.94.odt 16 Judgment

invited our attention to the entry made in the year 1985-86 to the effect that

the petitioner had developed habit of approaching Court without permission

of the Government. In the year 1987-88 and 1988-89 amongst other adverse

things it was recorded that the petitioner goes to Court on silly grounds.

Perusal of the minutes of the Committee Annexure R-5 point out that overall

performance of the petitioner was dispassionately reviewed. Entries like her

attitude of approaching the Court etc. did not at all weigh with the Special

Review Committee to arrive at the conclusion that she needs to be retired in

"public interest".

27. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the impugned notice dated 25.05.1990 was issued before her representations

pertaining to adverse entries for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 was

decided. According to him the representation dated 27.03.1991 was rejected

on 25.03.1992. The fact remains that there were serious adverse entries in

her confidential record for the years other than the years 1987-88 and 1988-

89. Moreover, there were adverse entries against her in the year 1987-88

and 1988-89 made by the reporting officer and ultimately they were

confirmed.

28. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

while the petitioner was entrusted with responsibility of conducting family

planning operations (laparoscopy) not only she fulfilled the quota but her

work was excellent and it was appreciated.

29. It is pertinent to note that this is a case where there are adverse

entries in the successive years. Therefore, it does not appear probable that

wp663.94.odt 17 Judgment

all the reporting officers bore grudge against the petitioner. We have already

observed that in none of the prayer clauses the relief of expunging adverse

entries has been sought. In that light of the matter, the adverse entries as

were made in the service roll stand.

30. Before the Tribunal the learned counsel placed reliance upon

the affidavit sworn in by Dr. Gopal Panse retired Additional Director of

Health Services. According to him, the performance of the petitioner who

had an occasion to work under him was satisfactory. The learned Tribunal

dealt with this aspect of the matter at page 12 of their judgment, and rightly

so. The learned Tribunal also discarded the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that there was possibility of substituting reports of

the reporting officer with the record produced before the Special Review

Committee. The learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in observing that, :

"..... we thus feel that the possibility of the State Government having substituted the reports of the reporting officers too with or without the connivance of the Director of the department of Health Services is too

remote to believe."

On perusal of the minutes of the meeting of Special Review

Committee it will have to be presumed that the members had seen the

original record and were satisfied about its genuineness. If, at all, malafides

are to be attributed then it will have to be attributed to all six members of

the review committee. By no stretch of imagination it can be believed that

they all had a grudge against the petitioner and went to the extent of

manipulating the record so as to pave way for her exit from the service.

wp663.94.odt 18 Judgment

31. In Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported at (2010)

10 SCC 693 the Supreme Court took stock of the decisions right from the

year 1994 to Surendra Kumar's case [(2010) 1 SCC 158] and explained the

scope of judicial review by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article

226 of the Constitution. The ratio laid down is:

"There is very limited scope of judicial review in case of compulsory retirement and is permissible only on grounds of non-application of mind, mala fides, or want

of material particulars. Power to retire compulsorily a government servant in terms of the service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms

bonafide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest."

32. Having considered the entire material placed on record we are

of the view that the decision of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with.

Thus, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

32. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to deal with

the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the event of

the order of the Tribunal passed in T.A. No. 3872 of 1991 and which is

subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.5999 of

2010, filed by the State of Maharashtra, is confirmed and consequently the

petitioner is promoted, all adverse entries against her would be washed-off.

According to him, this will have direct effect on the order of compulsory

retirement, in the sense that the very foundation of the compulsory

retirement i.e. adverse entries would be lost. Consequently, the order of

premature retirement of the petitioner will become non-est.

33. There are catena of authorities and reference to some of them

find place in this judgment laying down broad principles governing the issue

wp663.94.odt 19 Judgment

of compulsory retirement under the Pension Rules. One of the principles is

overall service record of an employee under consideration is to be

considered.

34. In Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2010)10 SCC]

(supra) it has been held that "washed-off theory does not have universal

application". Adverse entries in confidential rolls always remain part of

record for overall consideration even when an employee has been

subsequently promoted. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, we

find no force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                            JUDGE                                JUDGE 


    RR..