V.K. Sharma vs State Farms Corporation Of India ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 2166 Del

$~
*    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

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:

(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

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

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

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