Rajasthan High Court
Babu Lal Meena Son Of Shri Badri Lal ... vs Union Of India on 8 July, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7060/2021
Babu Lal Meena Son Of Shri Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 54
Years, Resident of House No. 62, Loha Mill Colony, Tonk Road,
Sawai Madhopur and Presently Working as Postal Assistant,
Gangapur Head Post Office, Gangapur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Through Secretary to The Government of
India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication
And Information Technology, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur -
302007.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sawai Madhopur Postal
Division, Sawai Madhopur - 322001
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Bhan Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
08/07/2021
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.4.21
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur Bench,
Jaipur, whereby the original application preferred by the petitioner
herein assailing the order dated 26.9.16 issued by the
Superintendent of Post Office, Sawai Madhopur, retiring him on
completion of 30 years of service, issued in public interest under
clause 1(b) of Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972 (for short "Rules of 1972"), has been dismissed.
(2 of 5) [CW-7060/2021]
2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner was initially
appointed to the post of Postal Assistant in Department of Post &
Telegraph, Government of India on 15.6.83. His services were
regularised on 4.10.86 and on completion of 16 years of service,
he was granted higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.11.02. Later, vide order
dated 26.8.11, the petitioner was granted the benefits of II MACP
in the grade pay of Rs.4200. On completion of 30 years of service,
the petitioner was retired in public interest under clause 1(b) of
Rule 48 of the Rules of 1972 vide order dated 26.9.90 issued by
the Superintendent of Post Office, Sawai Madhopur Division, Sawai
Madhopur. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred original
application before the CAT, which stands dismissed by the order
impugned. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
the applicant was born on 1.5.1962 and thus, he completed the
age of 50 years in 2012 but had not completed 55 years of age as
on the date of issuance of the order impugned. That apart, the
petitioner having been appointed in the year 1983, he completed
30 years of service in 2013 but the respondents have wrongly
reckoned his service from the year 1986 and considered his case
in the year 2016 i.e. much after completion of 30 years of service.
Learned counsel submitted that on completing 20 years of
satisfactory service, the petitioner was extended the benefits of II
MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008 and earlier also he was extended benefits
under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme w.e.f. 1.12.2002 vide
order dated 11.11.2002. Learned counsel submitted that the
minor penalties imposed upon the petitioner pursuant to the
disciplinary proceedings could not have been made basis for
retiring the petitioner prematurely in the public interest. Learned
(3 of 5) [CW-7060/2021]
counsel submitted that even the CAT has observed that there were
some good ACRs to the credit of the petitioner wherein his
services as honest and hard working official were commended and
thus, the CAT has seriously erred in declining to interfere with the
order impugned.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
5. As per clause 1(b) of Rule 48 of the Rules of 1972, at any
time after a Government servant has completed 30 years
qualifying service, he may be required by the Appointing Authority
to retire in public interest. It is not in dispute that before passing
the order impugned, the petitioner had completed 30 years of
service. From perusal of the provision, in no manner, it could be
inferred that the case of the Government servant for premature
retirement in terms of clause 1(b) of Rule 48 has to be considered
immediately on completion of 30 years rather, he may be retired
in public interest at any time after completion of 30 years and
thus, nothing turns on the question that the petitioner was retired
in the year 2016 whereas, he had completed 30 years of service in
2013.
6. Apparently, the object of premature retirement in public
interest in terms of clause 1(b) of Rule 48 is to weed out the dead
wood in order to maintain efficiency of service. It is well settled
that while invoking the power of compulsory retirement in public
interest on the completion of requisite number of service or
attaining the age specified, needs to be exercised by the employer
after examination of service record of an employee in its entirety.
The order of compulsory retirement passed by the competent
authority on the ground of public interest does not entail any
(4 of 5) [CW-7060/2021]
penal consequences inasmuch as it does not deprive an employee
any of his earned benefits and therefore, such order passed on the
subjective satisfaction by the employer generally, cannot be
interfered with by the Court. The Court while exercising the power
of judicial review in the matter of compulsory retirement cannot
sit in judgment over the same as appellate authority. Reliance in
this regard may be placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in
Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr : (2020) 1
SCC 801. But then, if the order is stigmatic, founded on
misconduct and appears to have been passed so as to circumvent
the procedure of disciplinary proceeding, the same cannot be
sustained.
7. That apart, it is also well settled that the form of the order of
compulsory retirement is not conclusive, it is open for the court to
go to the substance of the order by lifting the veil and examine
the real nature of the order. For the purpose of ascertaining the
real nature of the order, the court can even go behind the order.
8. In the backdrop of the position of law discussed above,
adverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that in the
service career on the charges of misconduct being proved, nine
penalties were imposed upon the petitioner during the period from
17.11.2004 to 3.5.2016. That apart, in the APARs of preceding
five years i.e. 2011-12 to 2015-16, there are adverse entries
recorded regarding his performance of the duties in not achieving
the target, habitual in late attending the office, lack of good
behaviour and use of imperilment language with the customer.
The penalties imposed and the adverse entries taken into
consideration by the competent authority while retiring the
petitioner from service in public interest were recent and not stale.
(5 of 5) [CW-7060/2021]
There is nothing on record suggesting that the order compulsorily
retiring the petitioner is stigmatic or actuated by malice.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of
this Court, taking into consideration the entire service record,
including the penalties imposed and the adverse entries in APARs,
the order passed by the respondent-employer retiring the
petitioner in public interest, cannot be faulted with.
10. No case for interference by us in exercise of extra ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is made out.
11. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
ADITYA JOSHI /647
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
