- (1.) By means of tine present, writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.3.2002 (Annexure 8), passed by respondent No. 2, by which petitioner has been compulsorily retired. The petitioner was initially appointed on 1.3.1967 as Assistant in U.P. Trade Tax Department. Later on, he stood promoted as Senior Assistant and finally as Trade Tax Officer (Class II) by order dated 12.5.2000.
(2.) It has been submitted that while working as Trade Tax Officer at Etah, the petitioner came to know that there were certain irregularities in the registration of shops and the survey reports were prepared casually under pressure of the shop-keepers. In this connection, the petitioner did not grant any registration to M/s. Kumar Machinery Stores without conducting survey of the shop and without looking into the record. After survey, petitioner did not find anything, and as such, he did not record anything in the survey diary. It appears that under the pressure of the aforesaid Firm, complaints were made against the petitioner, and the petitioner was suspended on 14.5.2001. Writ Petition bearing No. 25173 of 2001 was filed and the order of suspension was kept in abeyance by this Court vide its order dated 30.7.2001. The charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, to which he submitted a reply. The inquiry against the petitioner was pending, In the meantime an order dated 3.4.2002 has been passed retiring the petitioner from service compulsorily.
(3.) Shri K. Ajit, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Screening Committee cannot be a substitute of the appointing authority, and there is nothing on record to show that after considering the record of the Screening Committee, the appointing authority while passing the impugned order applied his mind. The order has been passed in a mechanical manner, therefore, it stands vitiated. The entire service record of the petitioner has not been examined. Screening Committee picked up only one adverse entry for one year, i.e. 2001 and made the recommendation for retiring the petitioner compulsorily. The petitioner has unblemished record throughout and the adverse entry made in 1990- 91 against the petitioner stood washed off as he had subsequently been promoted in 2000. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.;