- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri V. S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) IN this writ petition the order dated 26-2-1996 (Annexure-2) has been challenged whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service under Rule 56 Part (c) of Fundamental Rule in the public interest by order of simplicitor. According to the petitioner the order dated 26-2-1996 has been passed mala fidely to get over the order dated 19-1-1996 and the non speaking order of compulsory retirement was passed by way of punishment without assigning reasons as the petitioner's record of service is clean and there has been no departmental disciplinary action against him, the order of compulsory retirement is discriminatory in derogation to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution and is punitive and has been passed in derogation of provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India,1950 and not in public interest. As averred in the supplementary affidavit no adverse entry, if any, against the petitioner has ever been communicated to him. According to him if any adverse entry exists the same cannot be made basis of the compulsory retirement. According to the petitioner when he was working as Head Constable in District Jail Bijnore, he was transferred by order dated 14-1-1996 to District Jail Hamirpur. The above transfer order was challenged by way of writ petition No. 2574 of 1996 when the Court was pleased to pass an order dated 19-1-1996 and finally disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the impugned transfer order shall remain stayed for initial period of three weeks from today and if within this period the petitioner prefers a representation before the Inspector General of Jails, U. P. the stay would continue till the disposal of the representation. According to the petitioner the above order dated 19-1-1996 became the cause of annoyance to the State Government authorities, however, petitioner was made to retire compulsorily on 26-2-1996 without disclosing anything to the petitioner and without affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has claimed that the said order is stigmatic when the circumstances are unveiled and effect civil consequences. Counter affidavit has been filed asserting that a screening committee was constituted much after the transfer of the petitioner from Bijnore to Hamirpur and the screening committee scrutinised the case of 44 employees including warder, cadre and other class-IV employees to take decision in view of Rule 56 (c) of Financial Hand Book Rule 6 and the screening committee had given a report indicating that the petitioner along with five others were not fit to be retained in service. The service records, character roll entries and performances of 44 persons along with the petitioner was placed before the screening committee where the committee indicated that the petitioner's service was not necessary in the public interest. The screening committee has also observed there were several adverse entries against the petitioner and he was also given several opportunities to improve his working, but petitioner did not improve his efficiency, therefore, in the interest of public, the petitioner has been retired by way of compulsory retirement.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the conclusion of the screening committee is not based on any material, therefore, the Court is to interfere in the impugned order dated 26-2-1996 of compulsory retirement and the 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. 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 provision 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.;