Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The applicant has also referred to his ACRs chargesheet, the case of disproportionate asset and a warning issued to him. It is contended that they cumulatively do not warrant his compulsory retirement from service.

The applicant in his rejoinder to the reply of State Govt. has stated as under:

(i) The non payment of three months pay and superannuation gratuity or pension as required under the rules vitiates the order. The retirement is, therefore, illegal and void.
(ii) The Review Committee is required to meet 6 months in advance of the date so that the decision is taken before the officer completes 50 years of age or 30 years of service as per GOI instruction. This has not done. The Committee never met in 1998, 1999, 2000. It met once in 2001 and then in another year to remove Mr. N.G. Palas. The applicant is under suspension since 15.7.97 and the stay of High Court in disproportionate asset case was pending. If the Committee had met in time may be the decision would have been different. Even though the Govt. of India instructions require the Committee to go through the entire service record the Committee has considered his ACRS only and not the appreciations earned by him. It would be clear from his ACRS that there is no steep fall in his performance. Some of his representations to the adverse ACRs have not been acknowledged. The Gujarat Govt. had scrapped the grading system regarding recording of ACR. The committee has nowhere said that he is a dead wood or that he should be retired in public interest. The findings are not sustainable. The GOI has taken a decision two years after the Review Committee met. This delay is not explained.