Paramjeet Singh Bhogal (IAS-MH67) v. Union of India

(Per D.B.Bhosale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per D.B.Bhosale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per D.B.Bhosale, J.)

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order dated 8.12.1999 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai dismissing the Original Application No.577/98 filed by the petitioner -2- challenging the order of compulsory retirement issued on

10.6.1998. The said action against the petitioner was taken under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirmement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (for short, "the Rules") in public interest on his attaining 50 years of age.

The petitioner was an IAS officer of 1967 batch allotted to Maharashtra Cadre. He completed 30 years of service on 17.7.1997. He had not been given Selection Grade and Super Time Scale. He was awarded minor punishment in 1975-1976. A departmental enquiry was instituted against him in 1988 at the instance of his estranged wife which ended in exoneration of the petitioner. It appears that on several occasions between 1967-68 and 1994-95 adverse remarks were made in his confidential reports. In 1987-88, in response to his representation against the adverse remarks entered in that year, the adverse remarks were expunged. In 1995 the service record and other material of 13 officers including the petitioner was placed before the High Level Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary and the two Addl. Chief Secretaries. The said committee reviewed the cases of all 13 officers. Two officers,

viz. the petitioner and one Mr.D.B.S.Sohal, were found to be unsuitable to continue in service and hence on the -3- recommendation of the committee the impugned order of compulsory retirement under rule 16(3) of the Rules was approved by the committee of the Cabinet. The order of compulsory retirement was served on the petitioner on

30.6.1998 and he was relieved of his post on that day. This order of compulsory retirement was the subject matter of the said original application.

We heard the learned counsel for the parties for quite some time, perused the impugned order and other material placed before us as also the judgments relied upon by the parties in support of their contentions. Mr Shivramkrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order on the following grounds. Firstly, Rule 16(3) is totally arbitrary and invalid since it does not qualify the minimum period of service and also violates the principles of natural justice. The said rule empowers the Central Government to compulsorily retire an officer in public interest who has completed 30 years of qualifying service or when he attains the age of 50 years. It was, therefore, submitted that the officer, who may not be having qualifying service of 30 years at the age of 50, cannot be retired compulsorily at the age of 50 years since it amounts to removal from service which cannot be done without having recourse to Article 311 (2) of the -4- Constitution of India. In short, the rule is invalid since it does not qualify for minimum period of service. In support of this contention, heavy reliance was placed Motiram Deka Vs. on the judgment of the Apex Court in Motiram Deka Vs. Motiram Deka Vs.