(1) wp5032­99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5032 OF 1999 Manikrao s/o Daulatrao Tompe, Age : 56 years, Occu. Pensioner, Residing at Phulzalke's Wada, Near Railway Signal No. 2, Udgir, District Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Latur RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for the Respondent­State. Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGEMENT (PER : M.T. JOSHI, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging his compulsory retirement ordered by (2) wp5032­99 Respondent No. 2 ­ the District and Sessions Judge, Latur as per the provisions of Rule 10 (4) (b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred as "the MCS Rules"). 3. The petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk on the Establishment of the District and Sessions Court, Latur. Initially, he was appointed as a Junior Clerk. When he was working as Junior Clerk, a Disciplinary Enquiry was instituted against him on the charges that he had tried to influence the then Presiding Officer under whom he was working. A penalty of prohibition from promotion for certain period was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1994. The said Writ Petition was admitted. It is the grievance of the petitioner that because of the filing of the said Writ Petition, false imputations were made against him and he was suspended w.e.f. 17th June, 1998. Thereafter, no enquiry was instituted against him for a period of nine months and thereafter, suddenly he was retired by the impugned order. In the circumstances, submitting that there being no material to institute any enquiry (3) wp5032­99 against him, he has been compulsorily retired by the respondent No. 2. His further grievance is that after his compulsory retirement, he was not given any pension (now, however, the pension is started to him). Under the circumstances, submitting that without any material against the petitioner, the decision making Authority had compulsorily retired him, and therefore, he sought the quashment of the order. 4. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that very putting of the petitioner under suspension for nine months without any departmental enquiries and thereafter, suddenly passing the impugned order would show that the same was not in public interest and was passed without any reason. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, submitted that right from 1989, the petitioner was required to face departmental enquiries at the hands of various District Judge. The Departmental Enquiry No. 2/1989 was initiated against the petitioner for (4) wp5032­99 negligence in duties and for making false and fictitious allegations against the then Presiding Officer as well as the Registrar of the District Court. The Enquiry Officer, upon holding the petitioner guilty, had recommended for reduction in rank of the petitioner from the post of Senior Clerk to next below rank i.e. Junior Clerk. However, lesser punishment was awarded by the then Disciplinary Authority i.e. withholding of increment of one year without affecting the future increment. Thereafter, again a Departmental Enquiry No. 7/1999 was instituted against the petitioner for trying to influence the judicial work of the then Judicial Officer Mr. Abdul Aziz. The next of the Enquiry Officer again found the petitioner guilty and recommended for reversion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Superintendent to the post of Senior Clerk. The same was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. An Administrative Appeal against the said order was dismissed. However, Writ Petition No. 3643/1994 challenging the said order was allowed and the matter was remanded back for giving re­hearing and recording the reasons. Thereafter (5) wp5032­99 again, the petitioner was held guilty and the punishment was again imposed which was maintained in the Administrative Appeal. Further, there were continuous adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) against the petitioner. He was reported to be arrogant and negligent in his work time and again. On 21st December, 1993, the petitioner was warned in writing by the District and Sessions Judge. Lastly, the petitioner was involved in borrowing certain amounts from certain lady, against which the petitioner had issued a cheque. In connection with the recovery of the said amount, the petitioner was beaten in front of the Court premises. Not only this, a Crime No. 162/1998 with the charges of theft was also registered against the petitioner. In view of all these facts, finding that continuance of the petitioner in service would not be in public interest, he was retired compulsorily under Rule 10 (4) (b) of the MCS Rules. 6. By now, it is settled that a compulsory retirement under the Rule is not a punishment. It does not cast any stigma. The satisfaction of the (6) wp5032­99 employing Authority that retirement of an employee would be in public interest based on certain material is sufficient for retiring the employee before his/her superannuation. In the present case, the decision of the Respondent No. 2 ­ the District and Sessions Judge, Latur cannot be called arbitrary or unreasonable but is based on certain material. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp5032­99