Bombay High Court
Ganpat Khunnilal Rathod vs The Union Of India Thr.Secty.Min. ... on 27 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp.3107.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3107/2002
* Ganpati Khunnilal Rathod
s/o Late Khunnilal Rathod
Aged about 54 years, ( employed as M.S.M. Grade III
under SE (SIG) /E/ Gondia/Resident at
RE-Type -I, Block 4, Civil Lines
Doubling Colony, Gondia, Dist. Gondia. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi.
2) The General Manager
South Eastern Central Railway
Bilaspur.
Amended vide Court's order
dated 8.2.2006)
3) The Divisional Railway Manager
South Eastern Railway,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4) The Senior Divisional Signal & Telecom Engineer
South Eastern Railway,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
5) The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS
.
...................................................................................................................
Mr. Ganpati Rathod, the petitioner - in-person
Ms. U.R. Tanna, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:49:53 :::
wp.3107.02
2
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 27 th
July, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard the petitioner - Ganpati Khunnilal Rathod, in-person,
who tendered before us the written note of arguments. The same are
taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. Heard Miss U.R.
Tanna, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
2. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by
issuing notice dated 1.11.2001 with effect from 1.2.2002 on attaining
the age of 54-years. The petitioner had rendered 30-years' qualifying
service and he was made to retire from the post of Mechanical Signal
Maintenance Grade III. This was the subject-matter of challenge before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.
2255/2001 which was dismissed on 22nd April, 2002. Hence this petition
challenges the notice of compulsory retirement dated 1.11.2001 and also
the judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 22nd April, 2002.
3. The compulsory retirement from service in public interest
wp.3107.02
cannot be considered to be a punishment. The scrutiny of such cases is
done on two occasions - firstly, on completion of the age of 49-years
and secondly, on completion of the age of 54-years. The matters are
to be considered by a Committee constituted for that purpose and also
by Special Review Committee. The decision to compulsorily retire a
person from service is taken on the basis of the recommendation of
such Committees.
4. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal and also the order of notice of
compulsory retirement dated 1.11.2001. Perusal of the said notice clearly
reflects the innocuous nature of the order passing any stigma. The
Central Administrative Tribunal has considered this aspect in paragraph
number 6 and it found that the case of the petitioner was considered by
the Committee as well as Special Review Committee which found the
petitioner to be unfit to be continued in service. The Tribunal perused
the performance reports of the petitioner for the past three years and
also the report of the Committee, in paragraph number 8. The Tribunal
considered the aspect of the matter as under :-
wp.3107.02
"8. ............Here, in this case, the applicant was retired
compulsorily as per recommendation of the Review Committee
after considering the whole record of service. The applicant had
urged that he had an ublemished record. He has passed SAS II
examination and the order was passed due to mala fide. It was
found that adverse entries as well as penalties in his record were
there despite passing SAS II examination, he was not
recommended for promotion. The applicant had also not
impleaded the person against whom mala fides were alleged as
a party."
In Paragraph 9, the Tribunal considered the case as under :-
"9...........We have also perused the annual performance reports
of the applicant as well as the proceedings of the Review
Committee. It is seen that the applicant's annual performance is
poor during the last three years prior to the issuing the notice of
the compulsory retirement. It is also seen from the proceedings
of the Review committee that a properly constituted review
committee has gone through his record and has noted that his
performance was not at all satisfactory apart from the fact that
he was served with five punishment. Thus, we find that the
Review Committee had duly considered the applicant's case, then
had recommended compulsory retirement."
wp.3107.02
5. We have gone through the written note of arguments
produced by the petitioner which makes reference to several enquiries
conducted against him and it is urged that the same were without giving
him an opportunity. We also find that at least on six occasions, the
petitioner was imposed minor punishment for frequent absenteeism,
disobedience of orders, negligence of duty and committing the acts of
misconduct. At the most, it can be said that such kind of record
considered by the Committee constituted the motive for taking action of
compulsory retirement and it was not the foundation.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere
in the order impugned. The Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as
to costs. Rule discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
