- (1.) PETITIONER Shankar Preatap Singh has approached this Court for following relief: - (I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.9.2005 (Contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to function as Assistant Engineer in U.P. Jal Nigam and to pay him salary alongwith all other consequential benefits. (iii) Grant such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the special circumstances of the present case. (iv) Award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer on 31.1.1970 in the erstwhile U.P. Local Self Government Engineering Department (UPLSGED). After the enactment of U.P Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (Act for Short), the U.P. Jal Nigam was established and the services of the petitioner were merged in the same as Junior Engineer. Petitioner was subsequently promoted in the Jal Nigam on the post of Assistant Engineer on 29.4.1998. The petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer on 22.06.1998. During continuance of petitioner in services, record in question reflects that for the purposes of undertaking exercise of screening meeting of screening committee was held on 27.7.1995 and said screening committee in question comprised of Sri A.K. Seth, Chief Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow (Chairman), Sri C.M. Srivastava, Superintending Engineer Inspection Division, U.P. Jal Nigam and Sri B.L. Gautam, Superintending Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, as member. Said committee examined the service record of the petitioner and took resolve, recommending therein for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Pursuant to aforementioned order, decision has been taken, and accordingly petitioner has been compulsory retired and same has impelled the petitioner to be before this Court.
(3.) SRI Abhisekh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case order of compulsory retirement has been colourably exercised by the authorities as he could not be termed as dead wood and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner before passing the said order and coupled with this as petitioner had been promoted in the past, the entries prior to it could not have been made foundation and basis for passing order of compulsory retirement, as such order of compulsory retirement is unjustifiable and liable to be quashed and all benefits be extended to him. Sri. I.P. Singh, learned Counsel representing Jal Nigam on the other hand contended that authority vested under Fundamental Rule 56 of F.H.B. Vol. II Part II to IV has rightly been exercised in the present case and record in question clearly establish that petitioner was dead wood and once there was adverse material against the petitioner that was inclusive of withholding of integrity and in this background conscious decision has been taken, then this court is not to act as court of appeal in exercise of its authority of judicial review, as such no interference be made.;