IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17370 of 2010 PARSADI PRASAD, S/O LATE SEWAK PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-SIKANDRA, P.O.-GIRIYAK, P.S.-GIRIYAK, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEW SECRETARIAT BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE NEW SECRETARIAT BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 4. JOINT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIHATA BLOCK, PATNA. 6. DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, NALANDA. 7. DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PATNA. 8. SUB DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER DANAPUR CUM INQUIRY OFFICER DANAPUR, PATNA. 9. SUB DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER MASAURHI, PATNA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 03.03.2011 By Annexure-2 the office order of the Joint Director, Agriculture dated 08.02.2008 petitioner was compulsorily retired. The order shows that the entire service history of the petitioner was examined and it was found that he does not perform his duties properly, he does not expedite the functioning of his office and disposal of the files and he did not show interest in his work when he was posted in Nalanda district as was general impression among the farmers. Since the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years and had completed 25 years of service, the Department considered for his compulsory retirement and, after examining his entire service history, the said order was 2 passed. From Annexure-9, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. During this period, petitioner was caught taking bribe and a departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding was initiated against him. Due to this departmental proceeding and the appeal, the order of his compulsory retirement was stayed. In the departmental proceeding, report was submitted. In the meanwhile, the Authority, which stayed the order of his compulsory retirement, directed the controlling officer of the petitioner to issue show cause notice to him giving sufficient opportunity in the matter. The same was given along with the second show cause notice in the proceeding also enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. Petitioner submitted his reply to both the show cause notices. While matters were pending petitioner attained the age of 58 years. Therefore, the matter was finally considered by the Appellate Authority and it was found that there was nothing in the show cause, either to the proposed compulsory retirement or in the departmental proceeding, to accept his claim for continuance in service. Therefore, by Annexure-9 dated 08.08.2009, the order of his compulsory retirement, as contained in Annexure-2, was restored. The revision of the petitioner 3 against the said order has also been dismissed by the competent authority, as contained in Annexure-12. This Court finds that the departmental proceeding is not the sole basis for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It was unsatisfactory service throughout his service career which led the respondents to conclude that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in public interest. There is nothing on record to show that conclusion with regard to unsatisfactory service of the petitioner throughout his service career stands dispelled by any unimpeachable material. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)