- (1.) THE petitioner has, by the present petition, challenged the decision taken by the Respondents to compulsorily retire him with effect from 31st December 1992.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Innoculator by the 1st Respondent in the month of June 1972. Thereafter he was promoted as Medical Officer in January 1982. As there was no chance for further promotion from the post of Medical Officer, Dispensary, the petitioner applied for change over of his duties from the Medical Officer Dispensary to the Administrative side of the Health department of the First Respondent which request was granted and in January 1979 he was posted as Medical Assistant to Medical Officer of Health at Ward level. This is how he was promoted as Medical Officer of Health in January 1982 and he was given charge of 'f' South ward. He was subsequently transferred from 'f' South Ward to 's' Ward and at his request was transferred to 'h' Ward in July 1983. It is an admitted position that certain adverse remarks were made in his service record for the year 1987 which adverse remarks the petitioner sought to have expunged but failed. However, for the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 there was no adverse remarks in the service record of the petitioner. As far as 1992 is concerned. There is some controversy as to the interpretation of the remarks made in the service record of the petitioner. The petitioner completed 55 years on 5th August 1991. However on 30th September 1992, a communication was sent by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner inter alia intimating to him that as he had completed the age of 55 years, as per Rule 67 of the Municipal Service Regulations, his case was placed before the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner for deciding his continuation in Municipal Service beyond the age of 55 years and that on 18th september 1992 orders have been passed to retire him from Municipal Service with effect from 31st December 1992, and that accordingly the petitioner stood retired from Municipal Service from 31st December 1992. The petitioner by his letter dated 14th October 1992 addressed to the 2nd Respondent intimated to the 2nd Respondent his shock of having received such communication and placed on record that none of the officers under whom he worked had ever complained against him or served any memo on him for not working or for any non-performance and that he failed to understand why such injustice was being done to him. Having not received any response to his representation, the present petition has been filed.
(3.) MR. Kochar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the decision taken by the 1st Respondent was based on no evidence and was, therefore, required to be set aside. It was his submission that decision taken was under Rule 67 of the Municipal Service Regulations which provided that the normal age of retirement of a Municipal employee would be 58 years and that a Municipal servant on attaining the age of 55 years may voluntarily retire after giving 3 months' notice. However, the Municipal Corporation if it was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to do so, was to retire after he attained the age of 55 years by giving notice of three months. It was the submission that the power granted to the 1st Respondent to be exercised fully in the interest of public, it had to be demonstrated in the sense that sufficient material had to before the 1st Respondent to come to the conclusion that it was in the interest of public, that the said power was being exercised. It was his further submission that the satisfaction thus arrived at by the 1st Respondent had to be subjective satisfaction capable of being objectively tested. In his submission in fact there was no material before the 1st Respondent to have come to the conclusion much less any sufficient material to show that it was in public interest. Thus, it was his submission that the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner required to be quashed.;