Case: State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Shri V. S. Naik

2. The respondent jointed as a Clerk in the office of the Registrar of Firm on the June 1, 1943. On December 1, 1959 he was promoted to the post of a Senior Clerk. On March 17, 1970 he was promoted as Head Clerk and thereafter on completion of 30 years of qualifying service under the Revised Pension Rules, 1950, by the impugnedr dated October 3, 1975 he was retired from service with effect from January 10, 1976. The respondent made a representation on October 22, 1975 to the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, Bombay against the said compulsory retirement. On January 2, 1976 he received a reply from the Joint Secretary, Law and Justice Department, State of Maharashtra, stating that the government did not consider it necessary to review his case. On January 7, 1976 the respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court being Miscellaneous Petition 16 of 1976 challenging the said compulsory retirement on several grounds. The High Court by its Judgment and Order dated August 21, 1979, allowed the petition, struck down the impugned order and directed the State Government to reinstate the respondent in service as if he had never been retired from service with all the consequential benefit of such reinstatement. The High Court took the view that the said compulsory retirement of the respondent was not in strict compliance of Rule 8, note (1) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 in as much as the exact reasons for such retirement had not been recorded in writing as required by note (1) to the said Rule. Since the respondents petition succeeded on this short ground the High Court did not deal with or discuss the other grounds on which the impugned retirement was challenged. The State Government has come up in appeal against the decision of the High Court.

Reasoning:
4. It is an admitted position that the impugnedr dated October 3, 1975 compulsorily retiring the respondent with effect from January 10, 1976 was issued under the aforesaid Rule 8 read with note (1). It is further admitted that the impugnedr was served on the respondent giving him full three months before the date on which he was asked to retire. It is also not disputed that the saidr merely stated that the respondent was being retired on public ground but no specific ground or reason was indicated therein but that is not the requirement of Rule 8 read with note (1). The only requirement of note (1) is that the exact reason should be recorded in writing in each case, presumably in the concerned file dealing with the servant or somewhere before notice under Rule 8 is issued. In other words, whenever challenged, the State Government must be in a position to produce before the court the recorded reasons for ordering the compulsory retirement of a government servant under the Rule. In the instant case, the State Government was directed by the court to give inspection to the respondent of all the relevant records and pursuant to the directions, the respondent took inspection of the relevant documents and it was found by him that on one of the documents the following noting had been made under dated September 24, 1975 :We may serve a notice of retirement on Public grounds on Shri Naik, Head Clerk under Rule 8, note (1) of the Revised Pensions Rules, 1950, for impairment of his efficiency in the work assigned to him; vide ILD file kept below6. In our view, the judgment of the High Court suffers from two infirmities which we will presently indicate. Rule 8 confers power upon the State Government to retire a government servant at any time after he has completed 30 years of qualifying service for pension by serving upon him written notice at least 3 months before the date on which he is required to retire while note (1) indicates in what circumstances the said power could be exercised by the State Government and its says that the said power should be restricted to retirement of the employeeon public grounds, such as, impairment of efficiency of a government servant against whom it is not desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency or a government servant ceasing to be fully efficient but not to such a degree as to warrant his retirement on compassionate pensionWe have gone through his confidential reports from6 to0 and these are far from complimentary to him. The material on record also shows that right from 1948 down to5 there were adverse remarks made against him which were duly communicated to him from time to time and in 1961 as a result of departmental enquiry held against him and the finding recorded therein his increment was withheld for one year. The record shows no improvement but persistent deterioration in his efficiency. It was by reason of such record for several years that the impugned decision was taken. Further, the impugned action came to be suggested by Shri Palande, Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries on an overall consideration of the respondents record and not by Shri Shinde and ultimately the State Government took the decision to retire the respondent under Rule 8. It is difficult to shift the mala fides, if any, of Shri Shinde and ascribe them to the Industries Commissioner against whom the respondent has no grievance whatever. This challenge, therefore, fails.