Decided on March 08,2018

T Saikunga Appellant
State Of Mizoram And 2 Ors Respondents


- (1.) Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel representing the petitioner. On the two earlier hearing dates, we heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, extensively. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel representing the Gauhati High Court, assisted by Mr. A. Chetri, Advocate and Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned Addl. Advocate General, State of Mizoram.
(2.) The petitioner while posted as the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl was served with the order/notice dated 11.07.2013 of the Law and Judicial Department, Government of Mizoram, informing that he having already attained the age of 50 (fifty) years on 20.01.2004 shall retire on the forenoon of the day following the date of expiry of 3 (three) months, computed from the date following the date of service of the notice. This was done in exercise of power by the Governor conferred by clause (j) (i) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. By consequent order dated 17.07.2013 of the Registrar (Vigilance), Gauhati High Court, the petitioner was refrained from performing judicial works effective from the date of the said order.
(3.) According to the petitioner, he received the notice of compulsory retirement on the same date of issue, making him to retire on and from 12.10.2013, whereas, as per service rules he was to retire in January, 2014 on attaining the age of superannuation at 60 years. The grounds of challenge are varied, in that, he was not afforded opportunity to make representation against the decision taken to compulsorily retire him. Also, if the remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2012 be the basis, the same could not have been done as his representation made against the adverse remarks on 18.04.2013 had been rejected on 20.6.2013 without a reasoned and speaking order. It is his contention that the remarks so recorded in his ACR for the year 2012 does not give out any finding that he is not fit for continuing in service. Further contention is that an employee should not ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness when retirement on superannuation was round the corner. The main thrust, however, is that the impugned decision was founded on complaint received against the petitioner, which impacted his performance appraisal in his ACR for the year 2012. According to him, the complaint was never put to any enquiry for ascertaining its veracity. Contention advanced is that the complaint being the edifice, the impugned decision was illegal, being hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.