Ram Prasad Dwivedi vs Collector, Shahdol and Another

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

This petition was originally filed before this Court on 4-7-85 and was registered as Misc. Petition No. 1961 of 1985, however, on the establishment of Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal the same was transferred to it and later on, on its abolition again has been received by this Court for adjudication.

No exhaustive statement of facts is necessary for disposal of this petition. Suffice it to state that the petitioner, who was serving on the post of Accountant was retired compulsorily vide Annexure A, dated 13-5-85. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on account of adverse A.C.R. for the period 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984, the order of compulsory retirement (Annexure A) dated 13-5-85 was issued by the respondents. Shri Dubey, learned Counsel for petitioner by placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, , Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar, and J.D. Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1984 MPLJ 158 (SC)] has contended that after the adverse A.C.R. the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Accountant vide order dated 27-11-1984 (Annexure C) and, therefore, merely on that ground order of compulsory retirement could not have been passed. According to me, there is sufficient merit and force in this contention. In the cases of Baikuntha Nath Das, Madan Mohan Choudhary and J.D. Shrivastava (supra), it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that after the adverse A.C.R''s., if promotion has been accorded then it could not be made as a base for passing an order of compulsory retirement.

Apart from the above proposition of law, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner that adverse A.C.R. of the year 1983-84 was communicated to the petitioner on the dale when the impugned order (Annexure A) was passed. The factual aspect has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. According to me, the action of respondents, communicating the adverse A.C.R. on the same day on which the order of compulsory retirement was passed, is arbitrary.

In the result this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 13-5-85 (Annexure A) is hereby quashed. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/-, if pre-certified. Needless to emphasize the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits admissible under the law.