--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 5361 / 2003 NARENDRA SINGH RAWAT S/O GIRIRAJ SINGH RAWAT Vs. THE STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 17/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dt. 19/1/98. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was serving as a Boiler Inspector and his case was considered for compulsory retirement under Rule 42 (1) (b) of the MP Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. The order of compulsory retirement was issued on 19/1/98 and the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement came up before the M P State Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application and on abolition of the M P State Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application stood transferred to this Court and has been --- 2 --- renumbered as WP No. 5361 / 2003. The contention of the petitioner is that he was enjoying excellent service record and only one Departmental Enquiry took place during the entire service carrier and therefore as an order of compulsory retirement was passed inspite of good service record, the same is bad in law. It has also been argued before this Court that no adverse ACR was communicated to the petitioner at any point of time and therefore the adverse ACRs, if any, could not have been looked into by the respondents while passing the order of compulsory retirement. It has further been argued that the order of compulsory retirement is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government and the stand of the State Government is that the action was initiated against the petitioner keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under Rule 42 of the MP Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 and after considering the overall service record of the petitioner and --- 3 --- after taking into account the executive instructions issued by the GAD dt. 31/1/97, on 19/1/98, the order has been passed. The respondents have stated that the Screening Committee has minutely scrutinised the service record of the petitioner and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that an order has to be passed retiring the petitioner on completion of 25 years of service. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, the respondents have initiated action against the petitioner by invoking provisions of Rule 42 (1) (b) of the MP Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 read with Executive Instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. The respondents have taken into account the overall service record of the petitioner and a Committee which was constituted specially for this purpose keeping in view the executive instructions dt. 13/1/97, has considered the entire service record of the petitioner. The Committee after taking into account the service record has --- 4 --- arrived at a conclusion based upon the evaluation that the petitioner deserves to be weeded out as he has become a dead wood. This Court has carefully gone through the recommendations of the Screening Committee and the same reveals that the petitioner's service record was average, there were adverse ACRs and a Departmental Enquiry was also initiated and this Court is in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be weeded out as he has become a dead wood keeping in view the executive instructions dt. 13/1/97. The apex court in the case of State of UP Vs. Biharilal reported in (AIR 1995 SC 1161), in para 4 has held as under: 4. We have issued notice to the respondent who appeared through counsel and filed counter affidavit. It is now settled law that the entire service record should be considered before taking a decision to compulsory retire a Government servant exercising the power under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules. It is not necessary that adverse remark should be --- 5 --- communicated or every remarks, which may sometimes be categorised as adverse, be communicated. It is on an overall assessment of the record, the authority would reach a decision whether the Government servant should be compulsorily retired in public interest. In an appropriate case, there may not be tangible material but the reputation of officer built around him could be such that his further continuance would imperil the efficiency of the public service and would breed indiscipline among other public servants. Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a Government servant. The Court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be expunged on appeal or revision. What is needed to be looked into is the bona fide decision taken in the public interest to augment efficiency in the public service. In the absence of any mala fide exercise of power or arbitrary exercise of power, a possible different conclusion would not be a ground for interference by the Court/Tribunal in exercise of its judicial review. In this case, the judgment was delivered on May 4, (5), 1992 and on the same day hardly even the ink of Judge's signature dried up, he was reinstated. He is due to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation on May 31, --- 6 --- 1995. Hardly nine months remain for him to reach superannuation. In this view of the matter, we find that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the appeal. However, it is needless to emphasise that in cases of serious nature, the Government should expeditiously pursue the remedy and seek appropriate directions from the Court. Leisurely, the appeal was filed on September 18, 1992 after reinstatement. Keeping in view the judgment delivered by the apex court and keeping in view the findings arrived at by the screening committee that as the petitioner has became a dead wood, he has rightly been weeded out by the respondents based upon the overall service record. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The original record is returned to the respondents. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR