Full Judgment
WRIT PETITION No.22036/201”
04. 01.2013 Ms.Savita Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.
Shankaran, learned Counsel for the respondents.
Rule returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of parties.
The petitioner is challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.11.2012 dismissing his Original Application challenging the compulsory retirement order.
The petitioner was directed to be retired compulsorily from service with effect from 01.01.2009 vide order dated 01.01.2009 passed by the respondents in exercise of powers under Clause (j)(ii) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, in public interest.
The petitioner challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Central Administrative Tribunal correctly considered the scope of judicial review in the matter of compulsory retirement and held that there was no case of non-application of mind or malafides.
The Central Administrative Tribunal observed that action was taken according to the recommendations of the Committee constituted for the purpose after the petitioner was given opportunity to improve the performance for a period of three months.
The petitioner was, in the past, censured as well as his two increments were withheld for a period of two yeaRs.not only this, his services were terminated after holding departmental enquiry but later on reinstated.
Having WRIT PETITION No.22036/2012 2 regard to the discretion conferred on the authority under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the order of compulsory retirement has been upheld.
We find no infirmity in the order impugned as well as any error of law on the face of the record.
The writ petition is dismissed.
(S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge Skc