ADYA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-92
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 30,2003

ADYA PRASAD PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri T. N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Mukherji learned Standing Counsel. In this petition prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order dated 31-3-1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in the public interest on considering the recommendation of the Screening Committee in view of Fundamental Rule 56 (c) Volume II, Part 2 to 4 of the 'financial Hand Book'. The petitioner's date of birth is 4-8-1943, who was to attain the age of retirement on 4-8-2001. According to the petitioner he had already served the various department for about 30 years and nine months.
(2.)I have seen the service records of the petitioner for the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 where, in the character roll, the remarks are ordinary as well as bad and on the basis of the service record the petitioner was not found to be retained in service, the members of the screening committee have perused and analysed the documents, records and passed order of compulsory retirement and has voluntarily retired the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 31-3-1995 has been passed by way of punishment beyond jurisdiction in ordinarily manner and without affording the proper opportunity of hearing and without giving show cause notice to the petitioner.
Counter-affidavit has been filed to say that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto the marks and he had earned bad entries/adverse remarks in the character roll after considering the service of about ten years the petitioner has been compulsory retired and there was no occasion to give a show cause notice or affording the opportunity of hearing and the compulsory retirement order was passed in the public interest without any stigma and does not involve any arbitrariness and compulsory retirement is not by way of punishment. The original records after perusing the same has been returned.

According to the petitioner the compulsory retirement should not be passed by way of punitive measure in the light of 2001 (2) AWC 1445 (SC), M. P. Electricity Board v. Shree Baboo. In the case of Shree Baboo there was no material at all in the service record for compulsory retirement, whereas, in the present case as contended by the respondents large number of adverse remarks are available and different suggestive warnings are also available in the service record of petitioner which was indicated to improve and reform the functioning of the petitioner. The fundamental rules provides for compulsory retirement are in the interest of public service and in the present case retiring the petitioner in public interest is not illegal in view of Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40; (1971) 1 SCR 791.

(3.)ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner the public interest in relation to public administration envisages retention of honest and efficient employees in service and dispensing with services of those who are inefficient, dead-wood or corrupt and dishonest in view of Brij Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCR 583; AIR 1987 SC 948. In the present case warning have been given to bring the improvement of the petitioner. The provisions of compulsory retirement are constant reminders to the Government servants to conduct themselves properly, diligently and efficiently throughout their service career State of U. P. v. Chandra Mohan, AIR 1977 SC 2411; (1977) 4 SCC 345.
Since the service of as many others of the same department was scrutinised by the screening committee and petitioner was compulsorily retired on the analysis of facts and records, therefore, such order cannot be treated to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in reference to the decision of P. Radhakrishna Naidu v. Government of A. P. , (1977) 2 SCR 365; AIR 1977 SC 854.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.