- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal filed against the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") dated 3/3/1997 in OA No. 52 of 1997 is whether the respondent is entitled to payment of full pension after his compulsory retirement from service under order dated 22/8/1991. In the impugned judgment, the tribunal has directed that the respondent is entitled to payment of full pension on the view that his compulsory retirement was on account of misconduct also in addition to his inefficiency and that the government in passing the order was not certain as to whether to treat it as a compulsory retirement on account of misconduct or on account of inefficiency. We have perused the order of compulsory retirement dated 22/8/1991. The said order states that a departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent on two charges and that the Enquiry Officer found that Charge I was fully established and Charge 2 could not be established oncertainty and benefit of doubt was given on the said charge. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority has recorded as under: "As far as the punishment is concerned, the Enquiry Officer has recommended that as Charge I is fully established, it is not coherent to continue Shri Joshi, in government service and that therefore, he should be compulsorily retired. The government concurs with the aforesaid findings drawn by and the recommendations on the punishment made by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the government has decided to punish Shri K. N. Joshi by compulsorily retiring him from government service. Accordingly, the governor, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 6 (1 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 hereby orders to compulsorily retire forthwith Shri K. N. Joshi, the Manager, District Industrial Centre, Satara from government service. "
(3.) From the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement, it is clear that compulsory retirement of the respondent was by way of punishment in disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against him on charges of misconduct. In these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate as to how the tribunal could hold that the Government itself was not certain as to whether to treat the compulsory retirement of the respondent as a case of compulsory retirement on account of inefficiency. The impugned judgment of the tribunal cannot, therefore, be upheld. The respondent can only be given compassionate pension on account of compulsory retirement on the ground of misconduct. We have been informed that the same has already been given to him.;