- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Merun Dey learned counsel for the respondents. The Miscellaneous application dated 17-9-02 has been filed recalling the order dated 7-7-99. The cause shown is sufficient, therefore, the order dated 7-7-99 is recalled and the main writ petition is heard on merits.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Collection Moharrir in Town Area Committee, Sadabad, Mathura. According to him his service has along been satisfactory and by an order dated 24-7-89 the petitioner's service ignoring so many other persons whose service and collection was inferior to the petitioner has been compulsorily retired behind the back. According to the petitioner the order dated 24-7-1989 has been passed mala fidely by a non-speaking order of compulsory retirement 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 to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and not in public interest. As averred 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. The petitioner was made to retire compulsorily on 24-7-1989 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. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed which indicates that the service records of the petitioner has been seen and in according to the prevailing rules of Uttar Pradesh Town Area Committee and Notified Area Committee (Centralised) Services Rules, 1976 and in reference to Rule 38 (1) and (2) of Rules 1976 above, the petitioner has been compulsory retired.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the compulsory retirement should not be passed by ways 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. 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.;