IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5895 of 2000 LAKSHMI NARAYAN SAHU, SON OF KESHO SAHU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAHBEGPUR, POLICE STATION- MOKAMA AND DISTRICT- PATNA . :----------------PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUDHA MARG, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUDH MARG, PATNA :-------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Partha Sarthy, Advocate. For the Bank : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ====== 4. 26.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as a Field Officer in the Garkha Branch of the Bank. He is aggrieved by the order of the Administrator of the Bank communicated by the Deputy Managing Director (Administration) under Memo No. 19151 dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6, whereunder petitioner has been directed to compulsory retire from service of the Bank with effect from 31.3.2000 in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which, inter alia, empower the employer to compulsory retire the employee in public interest. It is evident from perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6 that Bank is satisfied that it is in public interest to compulsory retire the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that the impugned order although purported to have been passed in public interest under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Service Code but in fact the same has been passed by way of punishment. In this connection he has referred to the proceedings of the Establishment Committee of the Bank dated 7.8.1999, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, whereunder the - 2 - Establishment Committee of the Bank resolved to compulsory retire those employees of the Bank who failed to recover even 10 per cent of the loan recovery target given to them. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that perusal of the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 7.8.1999, Annexure-A would indicate that decision to compulsory retire those who could not achieve even 10% of the loan recovery target given to them was taken in public interest. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Pandey Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr., reported in 2006(1)PLJR 617 paragraph 25 to submit that compulsory retirement within the meaning of sub-rule (b)(ii) of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code require the employer while compulsorily retiring an employee from service to form an opinion in public interest. With reference to the judgment in the case of Ram Gopal Pandey (Supra) learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case the resolution of the Establishment Committee of the Bank dated 7.8.1999, Annexure-A resolving to compulsory retire petitioner and other who did not attain even 10 per cent of the loan recovery target has not been taken in public interest and for failure of the appointing authority to record satisfaction about the public interest vitiates not only the resolution of the Establishment Committee but also the impugned order dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6 as there is nothing on record to buttress the contents of the impugned order that the Bank or its Administrator was satisfied that it is in public interest to compulsory retire the petitioner. Learned counsel with reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 1990(2) PLJR 60 (SC) submitted that the court - 3 - before which the order of compulsory retirement is challenged can always delve into the basis of the order to ascertain its true character including the satisfaction of the appointing authority. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that from the counter affidavit, paragraph-10 itself it will appear that in view of the large scale advancement of bad loans during the year 1985-88 the Bank had taken a policy decision in 1985-88 to transfer its officers to such places where they were posted earlier so that they are able to identify the loanees and recover the bad loans. Petitioner was never posted where he had made recommendation for grant of loan. Later, a proceeding was drawn against him for not making the required recovery contrary to the direction given to him under Letter No. 6728 dated 4.9.1996 but the Enquiry Officer having noticed the fact that petitioner was never given posting as per his choice to recover the loan amount recommended his exoneration from the charge of being Lukewarm towards the drive to recover the bad loans. In this connection, the Enquiry Officer recorded a specific finding in the Enquiry Report dated 12.10.1998, Annexure-9 that petitioner was never posted in the Garkha Branch and thus he had no opportunity to identify the defaulter loanees and recommended to drop the proceeding. In the light of the report of the Enquiry Officer, Annexure-9 petitioner was exonerated from the proceeding under orders dated 20.11.1998, Annexure-4 by administering warning. With reference to the aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer and the order administering warning it is submitted that the impugned order is nothing but punishment for failure to recover loan less than 10% of the target fixed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the resolution of the Establishment Committee dated 7.8.1999, - 4 - Annexure-A it would further appear that thereunder the Bank had taken decision to compulsory retire others including Ajit Kumar Sinha who challenged his compulsory retirement in C.W.J.C.No. 7615 of 2000 which was allowed under orders dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-10 and the order of compulsory retirement dated 29.3.2000 passed in the case of Ajit Kumar Sinha was quashed. It is further submitted that the L.P.A. filed against the order dated 29.9.2000 has also been dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner being similar to that of Ajit Kumar Sinha, this writ petition be also disposed of exactly in the same terms which is contained in order dated 29.9.2000, Annexure-10. 5. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the prayer. He states that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6 is to be considered bereft of the findings recorded in the Enquiry proceedings taken against the petitioner as the said order has been made not in response to the report of the Enquiry Officer but in terms of Rule 74 (b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which enjoin the employer to compulsory retire the employee in public interest. Once the order recites that compulsory retirement of the petitioner is in public interest then this Court should not delve into the files of the Bank as also into the resolutions of the Establishment Committee to find out the grounds of public interest because a public order made publicly is to be tested on the touchstone of the ingredients of Rule whereunder it is made i.e. 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the Bank has relied on the judgment of I.N.Saksena Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 1264, paragraph-7 and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anand Prasad - 5 - Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1979 Service Law Journal page-75 paragraph-16. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6 indicates that the same has been passed by the Deputy Managing Director (Administration) on the orders of the Administrator of the Bank. It further indicates that the Bank was satisfied that it is in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Impugned order has been publicly made, as such, it is within the domain of this Court to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the statement made therein. In order to support the statement made in the impugned order that it is in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner the Bank itself had relied on the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 07.08.1999, Annexure-A, perusal whereof indicates that thereunder it was resolved to compulsorily retire those employees who could not attain even 10 per cent of the recovery target. The resolution dated 07.08.1999 does not speak that decision to compulsorily retire those who have not been able to attain even 10 per cent of the recovery target is being taken in public interest. In the circumstances, the satisfaction of the Bank recorded in the impugned order to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest does not appear to be the decision of the Bank. It may be the decision of the Deputy Managing Director (Administration) who has incorporated such satisfaction in the impugned order. From the counter affidavit it does not appear that Administrator or the Establishment Committee of the Bank ever recorded their satisfaction that petitioner is required to be retired compulsorily in public interest. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the order dated 25.3.2000 has been made bereft of the satisfaction of the Bank to compulsorily retire the petitioner. As there is - 6 - nothing on record to establish that Bank or its Administrator was satisfied that to continue the petitioner in service of the Bank is not in public interest the impugned order does not appear to have been made under sub-rule (b)(ii) of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. 7. Besides the order of compulsory retirement passed in the case of Ajit Kumar Sinha whose name figure just below the name of the petitioner in the resolution of the Establishment Committee dated 07.08.1999, Annexure-A having already been quashed by this Court under orders dated 29.09.2000, Annexure-10 and the appeal against the said order having been dismissed I have no option but to hold that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the order of this Court dated 29.09.2000, Annexure-10. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 25.3.2000, Annexure-6 is quashed. Petitioner was prevented from serving the Bank until his date of superannuation on account of the impugned order and the said order having been quashed the authorities of the Bank should pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner until the date of superannuation as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. A.F.R. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)