IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 25760 of 2007 Between: P. Sudershan Rao S/o. P. Ramaiah Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Employees Provident Fund Organization, Rep.by its Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14 Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi. 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Andhra Pradesh Region, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 10-8-2006 passed in OA No. 1632 of 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in not interfering with the impugned Order of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary void bad in law capricious violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India besides principles of natural justice and by setting aside the same consequently direct the respondents to pay all back wages treating the petitioner in service from the date of compulsory retirement with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 25760 of 2007 ORDER: (per Smt. T.Meena Kumari,J) The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1632 of 2003, as arbitrary, illegal and to set aside the same. He also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay back wages treating the petitioner in service from the date of compulsory retirement with all consequential and attendant benefits and to pass such other order or orders. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as EO/AAO. While so, the respondents, by invoking the provisions of Fundamental Rules 56(j)(i), compulsorily retired the petitioner from service. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 785 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Tribunal, through order dated 4.8.2003 disposed of the said O.A. while permitting the petitioner to submit a representation to the concerned Administrative/Ministry/Department/Office within two weeks from that date and if such a representation was made, the respondents were directed to process and submit the same before the appropriate Committee for consideration within four weeks thereafter. It further directed that the authority which is empowered to pass final orders on the representation should pass orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of recommendations of the Committee and reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal at appropriate stage if he feels aggrieved by any orders that might be passed by the Committee. Pursuant to the above directions, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.8.2003 to the 1st respondent to review the decision taken by the 2nd respondent to prematurely retire him into service. Thereafter, through order dated 17.7.2003, the Representation Committee endorsed the decision of the Review Committee to prematurely retire the petitioner from service in public interest. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No.1632 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, dismissed the said O.A. Hence the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Before the Tribunal, the respondents while denying the allegations filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the decision of the Review Committee to retire the applicant in public interest is correct. It is further stated that the Representation committee after carefully scrutinizing the records and other material made available to it has taken note of the fact that the applicant had got indifferent and callous attitude towards official work. The officer also did not try to improve himself despite repeated written warnings. Further, the Review Committee while taking into consideration primarily the performance of the petitioner for the period subsequent to his promotion to the present post, has endorsed the decision of the Review committee to prematurely retire the petitioner from service in public interest. The Tribunal having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the ACRs of the petitioner and the other material on record, found that the petitioner in spite of repeated written warnings and adverse remarks in A.C.Rs. did not try to improve his conduct. The Tribunal also took into consideration the finding of the Representation Committee that the petitioner was in the habit of misreporting or under reporting of the dues/membership; that of furnishing incorrect and false information in the inspection reports with regard to the establishments inspected by him. It further noticed that the petitioner was indifferent and callous towards official work. The Tribunal while relying on a decision of the Apex Court in BAIKUNTA NATH DAS v. CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, BARIPADA &OTHERS ([1]), held that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of mis-behaviour. It further held that the respondents while taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner, passed the order of compulsory retirement in public interest. On that ground it declined to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement and accordingly dismissed the O.A. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (T. MEENA KUMARI,J) Date: 3rd March, 2008 ___________________ (G. CHANDRAIAH,J) pnb [1] 1999(2) SCC 299