- (1.) By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has been compulsorily retired by impugned order dated 18th August, 2008 bearing letter no. 2308 issued by Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Division, Ranchi under the provisions of Rule 74 (a) (b) (iii) in public interest by giving him three months' notice. The provisions of law quoted in the impugned order has been later on clarified by way of office Corrigendum /order no. 146 dated 30th March, 2009, AnnexureA to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondents by stating that it should be meant as Rule 74 (a) (b) (ii). Though counsel for petitioner submits that the modified order was never served upon the petitioner but the same would not be of much consequence as, if there is a power conferred upon the authority in law, mere nonmentioning or wrong mentioning of the provisions would not vitiate the order, if it is otherwise supported by the provision of law. However, that is not the sole issue to be examined in the present writ application, as the main question involved herein is whether the impugned order is an order of compulsory retirement invoking Rule 74 (a) (b) (ii) simplicitor passed in public interest treating the petitioner as a dead wood after 30 years of service or it is in the nature of a punishment carrying stigma without actually holding such in a proper departmental inquiry. To appreciate that it is better to translate the contents of the impugned order itself which is self explanatory. The impugned order in the first paragraph categorically states that the petitioner on 10th April, 2008 had entered into the office of Chief Conservator of ForestcumProject Director Jharkhand cum Forest Management Project, Ranchi and used unparliamentary language. Earlier also he had done the same act by entering into the residential premises of Conservator of Forest State Trading Circle, Ranchi, without his permission and abused him as well as threatened him. It further states that there have been number of occasions when the petitioner has indulged in such unbecoming behaviour with senior officers and employees of the Forest Department by entering into Government offices during working hours and causing interruption in official discharge of duty. It further states that for the aforesaid misconduct petitioner had been asked to furnish show cause on several occasions but his conduct has not improved. The impugned order further states that on 11th June, 2008 also the petitioner had entered into the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand without his permission and had acted in an indisciplined way by using unparliamentary language with him, which is a matter of serious nature. After recording all these serious allegations in respect of petitioner, the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed in public interest by giving him three months' notice under the provision of Rule 74 (a) (b) (iii), as it is absolutely necessary. The compulsory retirement is to take effect from 30th November, 2008. Counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner's date of birth is 5th January, 1956 as such he would reach the age of superannuation in January, 2016.
(3.) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have sought to support the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had been issued several show cause notices for his previous misconduct. Several complaints have been made about his behaviour by a number of senior officers of Forest Department. AnnexureB Series are string of documents starting from 1996 onwards till the issuance of impugned order in 2008. Communication at AnnexureB Series show that several such officers like the Conservator of Forest, Regional Circle, Ranchi, Range Officer, Khunti, Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi East, Forest Division and the Conservator of Forest, State Trading Circle, Ranchi as well as Chief Conservator of Forestcum Project Director, Jharkhand, Ranchi have complained against conduct of the petitioner on different occasions. A proceeding also appears to have been initiated against him in the year 1999. However, it is not clear whether any punishment was imposed upon him or not. Counsel for respondents submits that he was however placed under suspension in the year 2004. Respondents also relied upon a letter dated 26th May, 2008 bearing no. 1342 enclosed to their counter affidavits to support their contentions that the impugned order has been passed after due show cause to the petitioner in respect of allegations of entering into the office of Chief Conservator of Forest on 10th April, 2008.;