S.N.SAHAY,J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated February 12, 1991 (Annexure-1) passed by Director, Sericulture U. P. respondent No. 2 directing compulsory retirement of the petitioner Moin Ullah Khan under Financial Rule 56 (c).
(2.) The petitioner has alleged that he was appointed as Demonstrator in the sericulture wing of the Department of Industries of U. P. Government in November, 1961. He was promoted to the post of Inspector in March, 1966 after being selected by the departmental Selection Committee. He was also approved by the U. P. Public Service Commission for the said post in the year 1968-69. Since then the petitioner was working on the post of Inspector Sericulture till the date of pre-mature retirement under the impugned order. The petitioner has further alleged that adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner in 1977, 1978 and 1984. He made representations against the adverse entries but the representations have not been disposed of and no decision has been communicated to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was allowed to cross-Efficiency Bar in 1982 and a warning was communicated to the petitioner on February 15, 1992 after the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed against him. The petitioner has submitted that there is nothing adverse against the petitioner after 1982 except the adverse entry of 1984 and the warning has no efficacy. The petitioner has accordingly, contended that the impugned order i, wholly arbitrary and mala fide and is as such, liable to be quashed.
(3.) The counter-affidavit shows that adverse entries were also given to the petitioner for the years 1980-81 and 1983-84 in addition to the two adverse entries which are admitted by the petitioner to have been made against him. However, the adverse entries for the years 1980-81 and 1983-84 were not communicated to the petitioner. It is further stated that the representations made by the petitioner against the adverse entry given to him in 1984 were not found to be fit for being allowed. According to the respondents the decision to retire the petitioner was taken on the basis of the entire service record-particularly after making assessment of the service record pertaining to last ten years and it is wrong to say that the petitioner has been retired on the basis of any particular entry of warning. The petitioner was found to be an average worker even after 1984 and he was not allowed to cross efficiency Bar in 1984 and it is stated in the entry for the year 1987-88 that the petitioner requires improvement. Even before 1984 adverse entries were given to the petitioner for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. Thus it is asserted on behalf of the respondents that due compliance was made with the G. O. dated October 26, 1985 and the petitioner [ was retired after the concerned authority had arrived at subjective satisfaction that it was necessary in public interest to retire the petitioner prematurely.;