WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 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;” The impugned order dated 1.7.2002 putting the appellant in compulsory retirement goes as under : “ MAHANIDESHALAYA ASSAM RIFLES DIRECTORATE GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES:: SHILLONG- 11 ORDER A/V-M/258-02 Dated Shillong, the 01 Jul,2002 1. Whereas the President is of the opinion that it in the public interest to do so. 2. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the President hereby gives notice to Mr MN Bhardwaj(AR-175), Assistant Commandant, 1 Assam Rifles, that he having already attained the age of fifty years as on 5 th Jan 02, shall retire from service with effect from the date of receipt of this order with three months full pay and allowance. 3. The President is further pleased to give an opportunity to Mr MN Bhardwaj (AR-175), Assistant Commandant, 1 Assam Rifles to submit representation, if any, within three weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. Authority:- Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. A- 19011/1/2002-Pers-III dt. 11 Jun 02. By order and in the name of the President. Sd/- (GK Duggal) Lt.Gen Director General Assam Rifles Memo No. A/V-M/258-02/58 Dated Shillong,the 01/Jul 02 Copy forwarded to:- 1.Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,(Pers-III),New Delhi-110001 2. Pay and Accounts Office (Assam Rifles),Laitumkhrah, Shillong-793001 3. HQ Mizoram range, Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO 4. Mr.MN Bhardwaj(AR-175), Assistant Commandant,1 Assam Rifles, C/o 99
INTERNAL 6. MS Branch 7. Record Branch(NE) 8. ARGIS Dte 9. D&V Branch 10.Legal Branch 11.Office Copy 5 Sd/-Illegible (BK Chowdhury) Colonel Deputy Director(A) For Director General Assam Rifles” 6. There is no challenge that FR 56 (J) is not applicable in the case of the appellant. Only contention of the appellant is that he was wrongly considered as „Low Medical Category‟ and other allegations as made in the para-19 of the affidavit- in-opposition regarding various mis-conduct on the part of the appellant, has not been substantiated by any documentary proof . It is settled law that the Court should be slow in interfering in the decision of domestic tribunal in disciplinary matter and that it should not ordinarily sit as an appellate authority and scrutiny the evidence of the case. If there is some material on record, in support of taking a decision by the Disciplinary Authority, it should not be disturbed. In this case, the appellate authority considered the entire service record of the appellant and arrived at a decision to put him in compulsory retirement, in public interest as his continuous utility in the service was found to be not required. Law prescribes the right of appropriate authority to take such decision as absolute. The Court will interfere only in the event, it is shown that the decision is perverse and not supported by any material. In this case in hand, there is enough materials that the appellant was in low medical category and sometimes he was found to be in S1H1A1P1E1. Referring to
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COU
Page 3: 3 in Umedbhai M. Patel(supra), I fi
Page 7 and 8: 7 also been made known to the petit
Page 9 and 10: 9 regarding that prayer of the appe
Page 11 and 12: 11 doubt. The internal assessment m
Page 13: 13 petitioner was fit for duties no

WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?