B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) -This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.5.2004, passed by the learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant for quashing the order of compulsory retirement, has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the petitioner-appellant was a class-III employee in the Judgeship at Varanasi. A Screening Committee was constituted by the District Judge, Varanasi for screening the service records of class-III and IV employees. THE name of the petitioner was also recommended for compulsory retirement. However, taking a lenient view, the learned District Judge did not accept the report of the Screening Committee and gave one chance to the petitioner-appellant to improve his work. Subsequently, another Screening Committee headed by 1st Additional District Judge, Varanasi examined the service records of various employees with that of the petitioner-appellant and recommended his name for retirement vide report dated 8.1.2002. THE District Judge, vide order dated 17.1.2002, after considering the facts and examining the record, passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner-appellant in public interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal in the High Court on administrative side which had been dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2003. Subsequently, he challenged both the orders by filing Writ Petition No. 16086 of 2004, which has been dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2004. Hence the present special appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that once the District Judge did not accept the first report and gave an opportunity to the appellant to improve himself, the occasion for recommendation for compulsory retirement by the 2nd Screening Committee did not arise. Therefore, the orders dated 17.1.2002, 07.8.2003 as well as the judgment and order under challenge are liable to be reversed. Shri K.R. Sirohi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the appellant's service record was not very good. Punishment had been imposed against him. He had been put under suspension and after examining the same, the orders had been passed, thus, no interference is required.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue of compulsory retirement has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again.;