K.J. Sengupta, J. - (1.) This application has been directed against the order dated 2nd July, 2000 whereby the petitioner has been finally ordered to retire compulsorily from service. Needless to mention that this course of action was resorted to by the disciplinary authority because of his serious lapses which warranted his forcible retirement from services. Whatever may be the grounds, this has to be examined and scrutinised by this Court. The scope of enquiry in this matter is very short.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 2nd July, 2000 is bad in law inasmuch as, without deciding and considering his representation made pursuant to the provisional order of retirement served in the month of March, 2000 was not considered. Without consideration of such representation, passing of final impugned order is in complete breach of the principles of natural justice. He submits that his representation indeed has been considered after the order was passed by the order dated 17th July, 2002. According to him this disposal is a most decisional one and it should have been done before the final order was passed.
(3.) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioner for the reasons that the Rule governing the services of the petitioner does not enjoin any power to hear or for that matter any right to be heard before the final order of compulsory retirement is passed. In this connection, I would set out the relevant fundamental Rules which is annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition: "(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any 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: (i) If he is, in Group 'A' or Group 'B' service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years:- (ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of fifty- five years: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Government servant referred to in Clause (e), who entered Government service on or before the 23rd July, 1966. (jj) If on a review of the case either on a representation from the Government servant retired prematurely or otherwise, it is decided to reinstate the Government servant in service the authority ordering reinstatement may regulate the intervening period between the date of premature retirement and the date of reinstatement by the grant of leave of the kind due and admissible, including extraordinary leave, or by treating it as dies non depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case: Upon careful reading of the aforesaid fundamental rules, it appears to me that if the authority concerned decides to compulsorily retire any member of the force by giving three months notice then such decision is final and there is no scope and/or provision for giving any hearing, meaning thereby in a case like this compliance of natural justice has not been provided in the rule itself. Compliance of natural justice may be excluded in case of necessity and this has been the settled law by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in Sampat Kumar's case reported in the AIR 1987 SC 357.;