Judgment:
ORDER
Based on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted vide Board's order No.MeSEB/GA/213/75/Vol.II/61 dated 6.10.1989 adopting Fundamental Rule 57(b) of Govt. of Meghalaya, and in the interest of the Board, the following employees of the Board are hereby compulsory retired from the Board's service on their attaining the age of 50(fifty) years or completing more than 25(twenty five) years of continuous service in the Board w.e.f. 11.3.1996.
On retirement, they are allowed to draw 3(three) months pay and allowances in lieu to the mandatory notice.
1. Shri P.O. Shira.
2. Shri Joginder Rai.
3. Shri Rameswar Singh.
4. ........
5. .........
Sd/-Illegible.
Secretary.'
3. Although the petitioner has contended in this writ petition that he has been compulsorily retired as per provisions of the Fundamental Rule 57(b), the order reproduced above shows that it was in fact issued under the provisions of the Fundamental Rule 57(b). Petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that he was only 46 years old when the order was passed and that the notice required under the law was also not served upon him. It is further pleaded that his service record has always been good and, as such, the decision of the authority to retire him compulsorily cannot be said to be in public interest.
4. At this stage, I may refer to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 57(b) quoted in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State:-
'FR-57(b):
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the appropriate authority may if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, retire a Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months, in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice after he has attained fifty years of age or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.'
5. The provision quoted above shows that it also provides for three months' pay in lieu of notice. The order of compulsory retirement quoted hereinbefore shows that in lieu of notice the petitioner was allowed to draw three months' pay. Therefore, his first objection on the ground that he was not served with statutory notice is of no significance.
6. Next comes the question of age. It is pleaded by the writ petitioner that he was only 46 years old and he was prematurely retired. But the provision of FR-57(b) quoted above shows that the authorities are allowed to invoke the provisions thereof in respect of employees who have attained 50 years of age or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier. It would appear from the writ petition that the petitioner Joined the service on 1.3.1971 and the impugned notice of compulsory retirement was served on 6th March. 1996. This was obviously served after completion of 25 years as provided in the FR-57(b). Therefore, his objection of premature retirement does not have any basis to stand.
7. The most important question relates to the element of public interest vis-a-vis the claim of the writ petitioner that his performance has always been good. The State in their affidavit-in-oppisition has annexed certain documents in order to justify his retirement. It would appear from Annexure-II attached with the affidavit-in-opposition that his controlling officer submitted an adverse report against him. The relevant extract from the report is quoted below:-
'N.B. The A.C.R. Dossier of the employee concerned during the last five years should also be enclosed: As per his service records available in this office, his performance was not at all satisfactory as he was not sincere to his duties due to his personal business at Muktapur area. It falls Date........ under totally the clause of negligence of Board works.
Sd/- Illegible.
Signature of the Controlling
Officer of the employee with
seal.
ANNEXURE-I EXTRA SHEET
7. As he was not conversant in the respect of discipline, punctually attendance and official functioning such type of enormous complaints were raised by the President of the Youth Welfare Association, Muktapur. It is true that he was always taken more interest towards his personal business at Muktapur although he was posted at Tarangblang neglecting Board works fully. This indicate that he was fully irresponsible to his works which tentamounts to the inefficient functioning of duty result of verification of complaints.
Sd/-Illeglble
Executive Engineer
Jowai Electrical Division,
M.E.S.E.B., Jowai.'
8. It is submitted in the affidavit-in-opposition that the Review Committee constituted by the state vide order dated 6th October. 1989 after deliberation recommended compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner along with four others. The recommendations of the Review Committee is, however, not available on record. But the report submitted by the controlling officer shows that the petitioner was not sincere to his duties due to his personal business and he was in dereliction of his official duties. According to the controlling officer, he was neither disciplined nor punctual in attendance. Besides, various complaints were also received by the authorities against him.
9. The above materials provided by the controlling officer in his report submitted to the review committee was the basis for the review committee to recommend his case for premature retirement. The statement in the affidavit-in-opposition clearly indicate that the review committee took note of the above report and forwarded their recommendation. It would, therefore, be difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the review committee did not apply mind before the decision was taken. The powers conferred on the authority under FR-57(b) is extraordinary in nature and are to be applied in public interest. The conduct of the writ petitioner as reflected in the report of the controlling officer, in the opinion of this court, is adequate enough for a decision to invoke the extraordinary powers under FR-57(b). The petitioner did not file any reply to the affidavit-in-opposition to contradict the statements made on oath by the Secretary of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board. The allegation that the petitioner is engaged in personal business in the Muktapur area is enough to call for a decision for compulsory retirement. An employee of the Board is not entitled to engage himself in any business while in service. In my considered opinion, for reasons above, the decision of the Board and the impugned order passed by the authorities on such decision warrants no interference by this court.
10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.