Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.D.S. Chauhan vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 27 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(2)MPHT237
Author: Rajendra Menon
Bench: Rajendra Menon
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J.
1. Challenging the order Annexure A-1, dated 1st October, 1997 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and the order Annexure R-1 again passed by the respondents on 30th September, 1999 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and confirming the earlier order, petitioner has filed this petition. Initially application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior on 11-10-1999 and after winding up of the Tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court.
2. Petitioner was initially appointed as overseer (Sub-Engineer) in the respondents department vide order dated 1-1-1966, he joined service on 21st January, 1966. He was promoted vide order Annexure A-2, dated 17-8-1983. In the meanwhile on 14-1-1986 petitioner was sent on deputation to River Board, Jhansi where he worked for 4 years between 14-1-1986 to 13-1-1990 and thereafter on completion of deputation was posted in January, 1990 as Assistant Geohydrologist, District Ground Water Service Unit, M.P. and was posted at Bhind. It is the case of the petitioner that from the initial date of appointment he has never been communicated any adverse CR but vide order Annexure A-1 dated 1st October, 1997 on the ground that he has completed 25 years of service and his case has been scrutinized under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 he was compulsorily retired from service holding him to be a dead wood in the department, alongwith the petitioner 509 other employees were also compulsorily retired, most of the employees challenged the retirement by filing application before the State Administrative Tribunal and in the case of petitioner O. A. No. 1191/97 was filed, this application was decided by the State Administrative Tribunal vide order Annexure A-6 on 22-4-1998 and finding the Screening Committee not to be properly constituted the order Annexure A-1 was quashed and petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefit and salary. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 1411/98 before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein vide judgment and order dated 16-8-1999 Annexure A-7 the Bench upheld the order of Tribunal but granted liberty to the State Government to constitute a fresh Screening Committee in accordance to law to consider the case of employees as per circular dated 13-1-1997 Annexure A-5. Thereafter, case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the Screening Committee which met on 12th and 13th December, 1999 and finding the petitioner to be eligible for compulsory retirement, the impugned order was passed. Shri D.K. Katare, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that the second Screening Committee which considered the case of the petitioner after order was passed in Writ Petition No. 1141/1998 and other cases particularly in Writ Petition No. 17-3/98 in the case of the present petitioner has not evaluated the entire service record of the petitioner and by arbitrary evaluating the service record made the recommendation. Taking me through the ACR folder, the manner in which the Screening Committee dealt with the matter Shri Kalare, emphasized that in holding the petitioner to be a dead wood by only evaluating part of his record respondents have committed grave error. It is stated by Shri Katare, that the criteria fixed for evaluating the case of employees by the Screening Committee was not consistent to the policy contained in Annexure A-5, dated 13-1-1997. By inviting my attention to the following judgments Shri Katare, submits that the action taken in the matter is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. The judgments relied are:
(I) Baikuniha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and Anr. , (II) State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah 1999(6) SLR 324, (III)M.P. Electricity Board v. Shree Baboo , (IV) Union of India and Ors. v. R.C. Mishra .
3. Refuting the aforesaid contention and by taking me through the criteria laid down by the Screening Committee and the procedure followed by the Screening Committee Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate emphasized that as petitioner has received four "GA" entries during his service, the Screening Committee has recommended for his compulsory retirement as petitioner was found to be a dead wood in the department. By producing the original proceedings of the Screening Committee and the CR folders of the petitioner Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate tried to justify the action of the respondents.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for parties at length and perused the records.
5. From the records it is clear that while deciding the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1703/98 a Division Bench of this Court had directed the State Government to constitute a proper Screening Committee and to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the circular dated 13-1-1997 and norms are laid down therein, the circular is filed as Annexure A-5. A perusal of this circular indicates that it lays down certain norms to be followed by the Screening Committee. The norms laid down are with regard to evaluating the integrity and capacity of the employees to perform the work, it is emphasized that entire service record of the employees should be scrutinized, that apart physical capacity of the employees to perform the duties and scrutiny of his entire service record and evaluation of the gradings in the Confidential Reports are emphasized, the policy and norms laid down in this circular does not fix any mark or minimum criteria for evaluation. While fixing the norms the Screening Committee which met on 12th and 13th September, 1999 laid down the following criteria:
(I) Dedication to work and integrity of the employees concerned should be good.
(II) His physical capacity to do the work should be good.
(III) Criteria for evaluating his service record was also fixed and it was indicated that the last 15 years record of the employees would be scrutinized, wherein a employee should not get more than three "GA" (poor) entry. Criteria fixed was that if any employee gets more than three "GA" (poor) entry during the last 15 years he shall be compulsorily retired.
6. In the case of the petitioner it was found that during the last 15 years of service prior to the date of consideration he had received four "GA" (poor) entries and therefore, his case was recommended for retirement. The CR folder of the petitioner is available before this Court and the same indicates that in the case of the petitioner reports from the year 1981 -82 to 95-96 were considered, petitioner had received five "GA" entries in the year 1982, 1983, 1987, 1988 and 1984. That apart his CR for the year 1990 and 1991, 1992 and 1996 were not available. He had received "KHA" (good) entries in the year 1995, very good entry in the year 1993, very good entry for the year 1989 and good entry for the years 1984 to 87. Prior to the year 1982 the record is not evaluated. If the manner in which the case of the petitioner is scrutinized is taking note of it would be seen that during the last 5 years he has received only one "GA" entry, he had received one very good and one good entry and for two years his CR are not available, in fact the CR for the year 1996 is not available, for the year 1982, even though the CR does not indicate any "GA" entry, it is only indicated as "fair" the same is treated to be "GA" (poor) by the Screening Committee. A close scrutiny of the complete record of the petitioner indicates that he had received a fair entry for the year 1982 and "GA" (poor) for the year 1983, 1987 and 1988, i.e., more than 9 years prior to the date of his compulsory retirement in the year 1997, he had received one very good entry in the year 1989, a very good entry in the year 1993 and again a good entry in the year 1995. During this period he has only received one "GA" entry, gradings for the years 1996, 1992, 1991 and 1990 are not available it would be therefore, seen that right from the year 1989, petitioner's service record had been over all good or very good, as he has earned three good and one very good entry and only one "GA" entry, his service record prior to year 1982 is not evaluated, if the criteria followed by the Committee is taking note of it will happen in a given case that in the first three years of which consideration is made an employee may get "GA" or "GHA" entry and thereafter, for 12 years continuously he may show improvement may be good or very good. In such a case also the criteria followed by the Screening Committee entitles a person to be compulsory retired. This criteria laid down by the Screening Committee is highly defective and does not lay down a proper method for evaluating the service record for finding out as to whether an employee is really a dead wood. In fact the criteria laid down by the Screening Committee is such that an employee who at the initial stage had show poor performance but shows improvement in the later stage and earns good or very good grading may still be treated as dead wood because of the earlier entries, in such a case the improvement shown and the good or very good grading received in the later part of the service will be of no consequences. If the case of the petitioner is scrutinized it would be seen that after 1988 petitioner has shown improvement in his service record and for three years continuous his grading are not available. If the aforesaid criteria, followed and the method of evaluating the record is considered in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases relied by Shri Katare, it would be seen that it is not a proper criteria for assessing the suitability of an employee, not only the entire service record of the employees from 1966 is evaluated. Evaluation of 15 years CR is also made in such a manner that an employee who shows improvement in his service record just before or during last 5 years prior to the date of consideration may be compulsorily retired, that being so it has to be held that the policy followed for evaluating the service record for determining dead wood by the Screening Committee is not consistent to the criteria laid down in the circular Annexure A-5 dated 13-1-1997, the policy formulated by the Screening Committee is highly defective, it has resulted in excluding the betterment in service record made by the petitioner particularly during the last 9 years of his service. When the question of compulsorily retiring an employee is to be decided by the Competent Authority the entire service record is to be evaluated and it has to be assessed as to whether retention of the employee in service is in public interest or not. The criteria to be followed by the Screening Committee is to weed out dead wood from the service, if an employee has shown improvement for more than 5 years preceding the date for which consideration is made, benefit should be given to such an employee and by evaluating his service as bad on the basis of earlier adverse grading earned would amount to arbitrary exercise of power by the Competent Authorily.
7. In the present case during the last 10 years prior to which consideration was made, petitioner has only one "GA" entry, on more than five occasions he has earned good entries and on one occasion he has earned very good entry. In spite of this he is treated to be dead wood and compulsorily retired only because in the initial period, i.e., in the year 1982-83 and 1987 he has a "GA" entry. It is the considered view of this Court that in fixing the criteria and in evaluating the case on the basis of such a criteria, the second Screening Committee has committed grave error. The policy and criteria followed by the Committee is not in conformity with the requirement of the circular Annexure A-5, dated 13-1-1997. There is no proper evaluation of the entire service record and the policy of compulsory retiring an employee who has received more than 3 "GA" entry during the last 15 years is a defective method of screening which cannot be upheld by this Court. This method of evaluation results in ignoring the improvement in gradings made by an employee in the later part of his service carrier, it result in giving go-bye to and keeping beyond consideration the improvement made by an employee in his performance after some initial set back. Considering the same this petition is allowed, the order impugned in this petition compulsory retiring the petition is quashed and it is held that petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service till attaining age of superannuation and after considering him to be in service till the date of his superannuation and granting him all benefit of salary and other consequential benefit it is directed that his claim after retirement be decided afresh.
8. Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.