IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4975 OF 1997 PETITION NO. 4975 OF 1997 PETITION NO. 4975 OF 1997 Shri Venkatesh Balawantrao Gondavale, ] Plot No.70, Saraf Colony, Tilakwadi, ] Belgaum - 590 006. ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Addl. ] Chief Secretary, Home Department ] (Excise), Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.] 2. The Commissioner, ] State Excise, Office at the Old ] Custom House, Fort, Mumbai. ] .. Respondents Mr. S.G. Gavnekar for the petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for respondents No.1 & 2. CORAM: R.M. LODHA & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED: 17TH JULY, 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per R.M. Lodha, J.] . The petitioner was employed as Sub-Inspector, Prohibition and State Excise Department, Government of Maharashtra on 14th January, 1966. He received promotion in the post of Inspector, Prohibition & State Excise on 12th August, 1983. While he was working in Class-III post as Inspector of State Excise, he received an order dated 16th May, 1996 from Commissioner, State Excise informing him that he would stand retired from Government service on 31st May, 1996. The order came to : 2 : be issued by the Commissioner, State Excise in exercise of his powers under Rule 10(4)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Before issuing the order of premature retirement, his performance was evaluated by the Review Committee which recommended that petitioner should be removed from Government service. The petitioner was sent the cheque in lieu of three months’ pay along with separate letter dated 3rd June, 1996. 2. Aggrieved by the order of premature retirement dated 16th May, 1996 the petitioner filed Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application vide order dated 10th July, 1997. It is this order which is now impugned by the petitioner by means of this Writ Petition. 3. Chapter III of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules deals with retirement. Rule 10(4)(b) of the said Rules, which is relevant for the present purpose, reads thus: "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) of this rule, the appropriate authority, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, by giving *[notice of three months] in : 3 : writing in Form 31, as the case may be or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, have the absolute right to retire- (a) ...... (b) any Government servant who holds a post in Class III service of the State, either pensionable or non-pensionable, after he has attained the age of fifty-five years; 4. The Rules thus enable the appropriate authority to retire any Government servant who holds post in Class III service of the State after he has attained the age of fifty-five years, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest by giving notice of three months in writing or three months pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. 5. The Commissioner, State Excise - the appropriate authority in exercise of the power under Rule 10(4)(b) issued the notice to the petitioner on 16th May, 1996. It was stated therein that petitioner would stand retired from Government service at the end of day of 31st May, 1996. 6. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention that was advanced before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that the order of premature retirement does not record that it is in the public : 4 : interest that the petitioner is being retired from Government service. According to counsel, non-mentioning of public interest in the order of premature retirement is fatal and this infirmity vitiates the order. To buttress his argument, he invited our attention to the form of notice of premature retirement prescribed in the Rules. 7. The first paragraph of the order of premature retirement records that the appropriate authority has the absolute right under clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules to retire any Government servant who holds a post in Class III service of the State after he has attained the age of fifty-five years by giving notice of three months in writing if such authority is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do. The appropriate authority invoked his powers under Rule 10(4)(b). Having recorded this, non-mentioning in the order that the Commissioner, State Excise is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire the petitioner, in our opinion, does not render the order of premature retirement bad in law. If the order of premature retirement is read as a whole, it leaves no manner of doubt that the Commissioner, State Excise decided to retire the petitioner prematurely in public interest. That the Commissioner, State Excise exercised : 5 : the power under Rule 10(4)(b) in public interest is apparent and obvious from the impugned order. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that non mention that the Commissioner, State Excise was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner would not invalidate the order of premature retirement. 8. The counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner’s record had been all along good and at no stage the petitioner was communicated any adverse remarks. Even if it is assumed that the service record of the petitioner reflected that his performance was average, the counsel submitted, that would not justify the premature retirement of the petitioner. According to him, the evaluation of the petitioner’s Confidential Record as ‘just average’ or ‘ordinary’ would not justify the petitioner’s premature retirement and would show that the action was malafide. He would submit that no material was placed on record for the perusal of the Tribunal to support the action of premature retirement. 9. That the Reviewing Committee evaluated the performance of the petitioner is not in issue. The Reviewing Committee’s recommendation reads thus: "Shri Gondavale is 54 years of age and has put in 29 years of : 6 : Government service. His Confidential Report is evaluated as Sarvasadharan i.e. less than good and therefore, the Committee recommends that he be retired from Government service." 10. There was some debate before us about the exact translation of the expression "Sarvasadharan". The counsel for the petitioner would submit that sarvasadharan means ‘average’ or ‘just average’, while the Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the expression ‘sarvasadharan’ would mean ‘very average’. Whether ’sarvasadharan’ means ‘average’, ‘very average’, ‘just average’ or ‘ordinary’ would not make material difference as it is obviously below than ‘good’. If the Reviewing Committee on overall consideration of the petitioner’s service record held the view that petitioner should be retired from Government service as his performance was ‘just average’ or ‘very average’, in the absence of any malafides, the opinion formed by the appropriate authority to retire the petitioner prematurely cannot be said to be arbitrary. Legal position is no more res integra that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment; it implies no stigma or any suggestion of misbehaviour. The principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. The power : 7 : to compulsorily retire a Government servant is one of the facets of the employment. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out dead wood in order to maintain the efficiency and initiative in the service and also to dispense with the service of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration. It is true that there is no aspersion of dishonesty or lack of integrity but the petitioner’s performance has been found on overall evaluation of his service record as ’sarvasadharan’ i.e. below than good by an independent Reviewing Committee. The Reviewing Committee, against which even the petitioner does not allege any malafides, recommended the petitioner to be compulsorily retired. Acting on the recommendation of an independent Reviewing Committee, if the appropriate authority formed the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be retired on his attaining the age of fifty-five years, the opinion formed by the appropriate authority cannot be faulted nor can it be said that it was not in the public interest. 11. The view of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity, warranting interference by us in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. : 8 : 12. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- [R.M. [R.M. [R.M. LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] Sd/- [S.J. [S.J. [S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.] VAZIFDAR, J.] VAZIFDAR, J.]