Bhanwar Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner has invoked this Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing this writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to revoke the order dated 26.2.1990, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.
(2.) The matrix of the petitioner's case is that he was appointed in the Roadways Department in the year 1948. He always discharged his duties satisfactorily and on the basis of his performance, he was promoted as Station Superintendent/Traffic Superintendent. After the Assembly election in the year 1989, a new Government was installed in the State and the then Chief Minister issued a circular order to weed out the corrupt officials/employees in the State and it was in pursuance of such general direction that a very large number of officials were compulsorily retired from service and the petitioner also fell victim of those circumstances. The respondent vide order dated 26.2.1990 ordered for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The said order of the respondent was motivated, illegal and mala fide. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the order was stigniatic as it had been issued in the background of the circular dated 11.12.1989 of the Chief Secretary, directing for retirement of corrupt officials. On searching enquiry made by the respondent, it was revealed that there were some adverse entries against him but not all were communicated to him. During the last 5 years, he was communicated only one adverse entry for the year 1986-87 and against the said adverse entry he filed a representation which was pending before the impugned order having been passed. Otherwise also, the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of Rule 38 of the U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Service Rules. 1981, as no opportunity to defend was afforded to him. In ordinary course, the petitioner would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, approximately a year after the impugned order but in the given circumstances, it was a proof of his being victimised to order for his retirement. On the basis of these grounds the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to revoke the order for compulsory retirement.
(3.) The respondent filed its reply through the counter-affidavit of Shri Harish Kumar, Dy. General Manager (Personnel). It was asserted by Shri Harish Kumar that the petitioner had been retired from service in public interest on the report of Screening Committee comprising of Addl. General Manager (Operation), Dy. General Manager (Operation) and Dy. General Manager (Personnel). While screening the case of the petitioner, annual entries appearing in his character roll for the last 10 years were taken into consideration and as for 5 years, i.e., 1980-81. 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1986-87 he earned adverse entries, the Committee recommended that he was not fit to be retained in service and it was on the basis of this recommendation that order for his compulsory retirement was issued. The claim of the petitioner that his performance throughout was satisfactory, has been disputed by the respondent, it was also denied that the impugned order pertaining to compulsory retirement of the petitioner was issued as to sequel to the instructions/directions of the Chief Minister of the State.;