(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) 1. The petitioner has invoked Articles-14, 16 and 21 along with Articles-226 and 227 of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, whereby the Original Application No.241 of 2010 is dismissed after appreciating all the contentions of the petitioner and arriving at the finding that the competent Authority of the respondent had taken into consideration relevant records regarding performance, integrity and conduct of the applicant and formed an opinion based on objective consideration and valid evidence to conclude that the continuance of the applicant therein in service is not in public interest, and therefore, after following due procedure issued an order of premature retirement of the petitioner. Even, thereafter, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his representation, which was considered by a duly constituted Representation Committee and after detailed consideration it was decided to reject the representation of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner had failed to point out even any procedural lacunae in decision making process.
2. Learned Counsel, Mr. S.S. Jadeja, appearing for the petitioner conceded that there was no worth-while explanation for not pressing the present petition on earlier 10 occasions, when it was listed for admission hearing. It is now sought to be argued that the material placed on record of the Tribunal do not justify the decision of compulsorily retiring the petitioner. He, further, conceded that the following findings of facts recorded in the impugned order could not be controverted. The Tribunal has in Para-8 of the impugned order recorded as under:
“8. We have heard counsel for both parties and considered their arguments as well as pleadings on record.
We have also perused the original ACRs of the applicant from the year 1979-80 onwards till 2009-10. Many of the ACRs are either average or poor , apart from numerous adverse entries and punishment, that are compiled in the folder. From the details of penalties imposed on the applicant filed with the reply, it is found that penalties have been imposed on him in 1989, 1993, 1994-94, 2003-04, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, apart from entries regarding participation in strike and unauthorized absence and period treated as dis non on at least three occasions. Details of his general performance, conduct, integrity and overall assessment recorded in the Annual Confidential Remarks for the year 2003-04 to 2009-10 have also been filed with the reply. Apart from this, there is record of his detention in custody by CBI for 11 days for which, he has been proceeded and punished. It is on record that the competent authority has gone through the records regarding his performance, service record, integrity, punishments awarded to him and other relevant documents and has thereafter formed an opinion based on the relevant records of the applicant during his entire service career. The Representation Committee has considered representation dated 10-5-2010 of the applicant in detail and has noted that in the last seven years, he has been graded average three times and in fact out of four times that he was graded good, there were adverse entries in his ACRs on two occasions. The Representation Committees has also noted that applicant has 8 adverse ACR entries, which were also communicated to him. The Committee further observed that the applicant showed no improvement and that his performance had been showing a downward trend as evident from his recent ACRs. The Committee also noted his being habitual late comer, his unauthorized absence, misbehavior with superiors, ineffectiveness in duties, etc.. He has been chargesheeted five times, and some of the charges related to temporary misappropriation of money, withdrawal of money from depositor's account etc. Annexure-1/1 is thus detailed and assigns specific reasons for rejection of the representation.”
3. We have heard learned Counsel for both sides and considered their arguments as well as pleadings on record. We also perused the original ACRs of the applicant from 1979-80 onwards, till 2009-10. Many of the ACRs of the applicant are either average or poor, apart from other numerous defects and adverse entries. From the details of ACRs of the petitioner, it is found that the penalties have been imposed on him in the year 1989, 1993, 1994-95, 2003-04, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, apart from entries regarding participation in strike and unauthorized absence and period treated as dis non on at least three occasions. The details of his general performance, conduct, integrity and overall assessment in the Annual Confidential Report from 2003-04 to 2009-10 have also been filed with the reply. Apart from this, there is record of his detention in custody of CBI for 11 days, for which he has been proceeded with and punished. It has come on record that the competent Authority has gone through the record of the petitioner regarding his performance in service, integrity, punishments awarded to him and other relevant material and thereafter has formed an opinion, taking into consideration his entire service record. Representation Committee has considered the representation dated 13.05.2010 of the petitioner in detail and has noted that in the last seven years, he has been graded average three times, whereas he was graded good four times and adverse remarks were made in ACRs on two occasions. Representation Committee has also observed that the applicant showed no improvement and that his performance has been showing a downward trend. Representation Committee has also recorded that the applicant was habitual late comer, apart from unauthorized absenteeism, misbehavior with superiors, ineffectiveness in duty, etc.. He is also alleged to have committed temporary misappropriation of money, withdrawal of money from the depositors' accounts, etc..
4. Despite the above findings of facts, learned Counsel, Mr. Jadeja, sought to argue at length on the basis of the entire record to submit that the service record of the petitioner was not as bad as it is sought to be made out and the petition was required to be admitted for consideration on merits of the case. It was noticed from the peculiar drafting of the petition that in the name of and under the heading of synopsis with list of dates and events, what the petitioner has done is advancing arguments and grounds in pejorative form and using hyperboles such as the notice dated 23.04.2010 being illegal and the order rejecting the petitioner's representation being illegal and void ab initio. In the synopsis itself, it is contended that :
“It is submitted that the findings in the impugned order are absolutely perverse and merely the reasoning of the Representation Committee are adopted by the Hon'ble Tribunal without giving any cogent and independent reasoning for rejecting the OA.
It is submitted that the finding in the impugned order that the competent authority has taken into consideration the relevant record and formed an opinion on objective consideration to concluded that continuance of the petitioner would not be in public interest, after following the due procedure is absolutely illegal and perverse.
It is submitted that the findings in the impugned order that there is no lacuna in the procedure adopted and in the findings and conclusions arrived at by the competent authority is absolutely illegal and unjustified.
XXX XXX XXX It is submitted that the assessment about the integrity of the petitioner is based merely on assumption, presumption and conjectures, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
5. The synopsis and the list of dates and events are required for giving short summary of relevant facts and the sequence of events, which is blown up by the petitioner into 14 pages of arguments and allegations, obviously with a view to create a bias even before the petition is read. The adjournments at the admission stage for not less than 10 dates, further accentuates the impression that the petitioner is out to abuse process of Court with little regard for truth or expeditious hearing of the matter.
6. Under the above circumstances, no ground worth the name having been made out to interfere with the impugned order, the petition is DISMISSED in limini.
(D.H. WAGHELA, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) Umesh/