Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 576 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 474, the impugned order was not based on any material other than a pending enquiry. The apex court, having regard to particular facts of the case, dismissed the appeal of State against the order of the High Court setting aside the order of compulsory retirement:

"12. In the instant case, there were absolutely no adverse entries in the respondent's confidential record. In the rejoinder filed in this Court also, nothing has been averred that the respondent's service record revealed any adverse entries. The respondent had successfully crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 as well as at 55. He was placed under suspension on 22-5-1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. The State Government had sufficient time to complete the enquiry against him but the enquiry was not completed within a reasonable time. Even the Review Committee did not recommend the compulsory retirement of the respondent. The respondent had only less than two years to retire from service. If the impugned order is viewed in the light of these facts, it could be said that the order of compulsory retirement was passed for extraneous reasons. As the authorities did not wait for the conclusion of the enquiry and decided to dispense with the services of the respondent merely on the basis of the allegations which had not been proved and in the absence of any adverse entries in his service record to support the order of compulsory retirement, we are of the view that the Division Bench was right in holding that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. We find no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, three months' time is given to the appellant State to comply with the directions of the Division Bench, failing which the respondent would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of the pecuniary benefits due to him."