IN _ THE_STATE,AIMINIS TRATIVE TRZ.BUNAL . AT JABALPUR CASE No« O.Aa .3-&:^- /99 w^.y />7^!^' APPLICMT O.CoG.S.Khatri? Veternary Extension officer^ Block Dev^lopment Office^ S^A- tt@ -Durg^ ^ 7- /335.3 Q ^S^]^, MSSCNDEN:^ l^ State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary Deptt® of veiernary GOV t» of Madhya Predesh BHOPALo 2^ .Deputy Secretarytf .Deptt^ of vsternary^ Oovt«. of Madhya Pradesh^ BHOPALe 3o Director of ^ternary Services Bhopal® APPLICATIQN U/S e. 19 OF TH£ ^ AE^INIS TR^TI VE__ TRIBUNAL__ ACT<. Applicant bc^o^ to submit a3 unde r_^-__,_„.,„„,.,_„_.„..„„,„-.;....--.-.------ •^p^ HI6H COUftT OF CHHATTES©ARHAT BILASPUR Petitioner W. P. (s) No. 1778 of 2005 Dr. G.S. Khatri Versus Respondents : State of Madhya Pradesh <& others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnthotri. Shri Rahul Birthary, counsel for the Petitioner. Siri Ajay bwivedi, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. OR&ER (pc^sed on 29th August, 2006) Jhe following order of the Court was passed by Satjsh (C. ^gnihotri, J< 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed ois Veterinary Assistant Surgeon by order dated 6<5.1972 (Annexure A/5) on temporary basis- Thereafter, service of the petitioner was regularized on the basis of opproval granted by the Public Service Commission by order dated 23.5.1978 (Annexure A/2). 2. Jhe respondents/State by order dated 2nd January, 1999 retired the petitioner compul-sorily in the interest of public, after having taken into consideration a!l the service records< 3. Jhe only contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was neii+ier given any show cause notice nor the enquiry was held before the decision ~"w ^- was taken to retire the petitioner compulsorjly. The petitioner has not raised any other ground, except the ground of violation of principles of nalzsra! justice- 4, The Sjpreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. J. N, Sinha and another1 observed in para 8, as under:- tt8..............There is no denying the fact that in all orgcxnizations dnd more so in ^overnment orgonizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the ^ame, Fundamental Rule 56 (j) holds the balance between the rights of 'tihe individual Government servont and the interests of the public* While a minimum service is guaranteed to the <5overnment servont, the ^overnment is given power to energies its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be 1+ier@ in public interest." 5. The Supreme Court in the case of C. D. Aiiawadj Vs. Union of India and otiiers observed in para 8, as under:- U8. An aggrieved civil ^rvwit can challenge on order of compulsory retirement on any of the following grounds cus sett-led by several decisions of -tihis Court, (i) that the requisite opinion hcis not been formed; or (ii) that the decision is based on collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is an arbitrary decision«.„„„.*" 6. The Sjpreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and onother Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and OOTQther3 w4iile providing for guiding principles observed in para 32, as under:- ll32, The following principles emerge from the above discussion". IV/ (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment It implies no stigma nor any suggestjon of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the ©overnmenton forming the opinion that it is in the publsc interest to retire a government servant connpulsority, TTie order is passed on the subjective satisfacts'on of the Soyernment, (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While l4ie High Court or 1+iis Court would not examine the matier as an appellate Court, they moy interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide, or 03) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given niateria! in short; if it is found to be a perverse order, (iv) The ^overnment (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decssion in the matt-er - of cour^ attaching more importance to record of and perfornic&nce during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records; character rolls, both favourable and adver^, If a government ^rvant is promoted to a higher post notwithstoinding the adver^ remarks, such remarks lose 1+ieir sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority, (v) An order of compulsory retirement js not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on 1+ie showing that while passing it uncommunicated adver^ remarks were also '•^ taken jnto consideration. That circumstcnce by itself cannot be a basis for interference«„..,„" 7. The Sjpreme Court in the ca^ of Stdte of ^jjarat wid eanother Vs. Suryakaait Chunilal Shah observed in paras 23, 24 and 25, as under:- tt23, In order, therefore, to find out whether <my government ^rvant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorjly retired in public interest for maintainjng an effident administration, on objective view of overall performance of that government servant has to be taken before deciding, after he has attajned the age of 50 years, either to retain him further in s^rvice or to dispense with his servicas san pub!ic interest, by giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu "rf^ereof. 24. The performance of a government servoint is reflected in the annual character roll entri'es crsd, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the ©ffjciency, honesty or integrity of a government servant is to Jook at his character rolJ entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is token, It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse entries or 1+ie overal! categorjzation of th@ employee is poor and there i$ material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a government servant cannot be said to be efficient, Effsciency is a bund!e of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which ?s the stick of "jntegrityF". If this is missing, the whole bundle would disper^, A government seryant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. 25, Purpose of adver^ entries is primarily to forewarn 1+ie 9overnment servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. TTiat is why, it is required to communicate the adver^ entries so 1+iat 1+ie government servant to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either opportunit^ to explain his conduct so as to show that 1+iie adverse entr^ W2S wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over l+ie matter and on being conyinced that his preyious conduct justified such an entry, to improve his performance," 8. It is well settled pnnciple of law 1+»at the order of compulsor/ retirement can be chaljenged only on tiie ground that the requisite opinion wxs not formed or th@ decision was ba^d on the collateral grounds/no evidence, or the decision was arbitrary, It is further estabjished principje of !aw that the order is ba^d on the subjective satisfaction of the ©overnment,This Court cannot sit as on cippellate Court to interfere with the decision of the 9overnment/employer, except in ca^s of no evidence or established mabfide or the order is arbitrary, Qi perusal of the papers, as stated above, It is ciear that in the pres^nt ca^e, the order of the compulsory retirement does not suffer from any perversity or illegaJity, as stated above. 9. Tlius, the impugned order is vals'd and sustdnable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu 1(AIR 1971 SC 40) 2(AIR 1990 SC 1004) 3(AIR 1992 SC 1020) 4((l999) 1 SCC 529}