IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8001 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- AMBALAL RAMJIBHAI SONI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 8001 of 1990 MR YN OZA for Petitioner No. 1 MS MITA PANCHAL, AGP for Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT Date of decision: 11/06/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT #. The only question which requires consideration and adjudication in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the impugned order of the respondent-authority of compulsory retirement of the petitioner passed no 24.4.1990 is in any way unjust, unreasonable or vulnerable requiring interference for the purpose of quashing the same and for reinstating the petitioner in service. #. The respondent-authority passed the impugned order on 24.4.90 in accordance with clause (aa)(i)(1) of Rule 161(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), and as amended from time to time, prematurely retiring the petitioner who was, at the relevant time, working as Executive Engineer (Civil), Narmada Project Planning and Design Circle, Unit-E, Gandhinagar, under the Superintending Engineer, Narmada Project Planning and Design Circle, Gandhinagar. The petitioner was ordered to compulsorily retire from Government services forthwith in the interest of public service by giving him three months' notice pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period as per the provisions of clause (aa)(i) of the Rules, under the order dated 24th April, 1990, which is under challenge in this writ petition. #. The compulsory retirement, as such, is not punitive. The Rules provide for review of such cases for continuance in service beyond certain age of the delinquent. In the case of the petitioner, the review committee examined his case, and after consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the confidential reports of the petitioner and also the overall performance of the petitioner during the course of his service, the Committee found that there were adverse entries of considerable serious nature and which were put in the confidential report right from the year 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner had also earned some corrective remarks in the confidential reports for the period from 21.10.1985 to 31.3.86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The adverse remarks were also made in the confidential reports regarding his integrity for the period 1.1.73 to 27.2.73, 1975-76 and 1976-77. Most of the adverse entries remained unchallenged as no representation came to be made by the petitioner. The performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory as reflected also from the confidential reports. These facts are amply borne out from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents by the Under Secretary (Services), Narmada and Water Resources Department, Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. #. The ultimate design of review at the age of 50-55 in the service is to see as to whether the record of the employee is satisfactory or not and whether the continued services of such employee will be helpful and useful and productive in the administration of not. The review is provided with a view to chop off the dead wood or in other words, some employees who have either unsatisfactory record or who have been found motiveless and without any enthusiasm, and therefore, considering the overall performance of the service record and the entries in the confidential reports, the competent authority is empowered to cut short the period of service of a delinquent by passing the order of compulsory retirement, and it is an important exercise. After having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case, and the entire service record of the petitioner, coupled with the adverse entries, this Court has o hesitating in finding that the impugned order of directing the petitioner to compulsorily retire by the review committee, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be in any way unjust, unreasonable or perverse, requiring interference of this Court in discharge of tis extra-ordinary, plenary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. #. In view of the above, the only legal fate this petition must meet with is rejection. Thus, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. The parties are left to bear their own costs. (J.N.Bhatt, Acting C.J.) (sunil)