- (1.) D. V. Sharma, J. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 1-9-2005, a copy of which is contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner was compulsory retired from service.
(2.) THE petitioner had a steep rise in the hierarchy of the Local Self Government Engineering Department until the dawn dated 1-9- 2005 which marked the beginning of his downfall. He suddenly fell from grace as the order for compulsory retirement was passed against him. The petitioner has averred that he was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile Local Self Government Engineering Department on 18-11-1972 and thereafter, on the creation of U. P. Jal Nigam, his services were transferred in the year 1975. On 18-12-1978, the petitioner was regularised on the post of Assistant Engineer and further on 9-2-1979 he was allowed to cross the first efficiency bar. On 5-5-1983, the petitioner was allowed to cross the second efficiency bar and consequently on 5-12- 1984, he was confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil ). On 3-2-1986, the petitioner was granted time scale after completion of ten years satisfactory service and on 22-9-1986, he was allowed to cross efficiency bar. The petitioner has also alleged that he was given appreciation letter for his good work during Haridwar Kumbha Mela and on 11th July, 2000, he was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and further on 6-2-2004 after completion of 18 years' satisfactory service, the petitioner was given promotional pay scale of Superintending Engineering. The petitioner has completed approximately 33 years of service. The petitioner has further alleged that he has always with utmost devotion served the U. P. Jal Nigam and all of sudden on 1-9-2005, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee. Presently, the services of the petitioner, is governed under the U. P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulations, 1978. Sri Ritu Raj Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has unblemished service record and neither any adverse entry was ever communicated to him nor any punishment at any point of time has been awarded to him and his work throughout was appreciated by the superiors, but the order of compulsory retirement was passed in violation of the provisions of Rule 56 (C) of the Fundamental Rules without any material. He further submitted that the Screening Committee assessed the merit of the petitioner, in violation of service rules, which amounts to gross abuse of power.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner belonged to a technical service and the members of the Screening Committee were not part of the organisation having sufficient knowledge and expertise and without any public interest the order of compulsory retirement was passed. He further submitted that the petitioner is neither inefficient nor corrupt nor dishonest or has become dead-wood for the service and the conclusion arrived at by the Screening Committee practically keeping the petitioner in the category of no-utility is unfair and unjust and the order of compulsory retirement can be passed on subjective satisfaction which has to be formed on the basis of the entire record of service. At the last he has submitted that the action taken by the respondents was not in public interest and is liable to be quashed for the reason that the petitioner has unblemished service record and especially his ten years service record is good on account of which he was promoted on 11th July, 2000, as Executive Engineer and further on 6-2-2004 he was given promotional pay scale of Superintending Engineer and the persons having inferior service record in comparison to the petitioner, have been retained in service and the order dated 1- 9-2005 is arbitrary and mala fide. Sri I. P. Singh learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening Committee, which emphasized on scientific manner by fixing quality point marks, the petitioner was found unsuitable for retention in service and accordingly on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening Committee the order of compulsory retirement was passed. He further submitted that the petitioner has become dead wood and is of no-utility for the services as he has obtained less marks, prescribed by the Screening Committee, consequently it cannot be said that the action of the respondents was unwarranted, arbitrary, malicious or capricious in any manner and the petition is liable to be dismissed.;