- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is an appeal against the order of learned Single Judge dated 12.01.2007 passed in writ Petition No.54523 of 2005, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition being devoid of merit.
(3.) Appellant was Amin in Bareilly Judgeship. In February, 1994, a complaint was made that the appellant while performing his duties as Amin took Rs.50/- as expenses and demanded Rs.500/- by way of bribe. On the complaint being made, an enquiry was made and the appellant was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increment permanently. Against the said order, the appellant filed statutory appeal before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Bareilly Judgeship. The then Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Bareilly Judgeship allowed the appeal in part and reduced the punishment to the stoppage of two increments for five years only. Against the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.26996 of 1999, which has been allowed vide order dated 06.08.2013 whereby the punishment order has been quashed and the disciplinary authority has been directed to consider the matter afresh to grant any lesser punishment. The copy of the order of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.26996 of 1999 has been filed along with the amendment application. The appellant has been subjected for consideration of the compulsory retirement by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee having regard to the material available on record has recommended for the compulsory retirement of the appellant. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee, District Judge, Bareilly in exercise of powers, vested in Fundamental Rules 56 (c) of the Financial Hand Book Volume-2, paras 2 to 4, compulsorily retired the appellant vide order dated 15.07.2005, which has been challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.54523 of 2005. Learned Single Judge while deciding the aforesaid writ petition observed as follows : "In the present case factual position, which is emerging is to the effect that at all point of time work and conduct of petitioner has been found to be satisfactory/good except for the year 1993-94, while preparing A.C.R. of petitioner it has been mentioned that work is satisfactory but members of bar have complaints qua the functioning of petitioner. On 17.7.1995, charges of accepting bribe and demanding Rs.500/- has been found proved and petitioner has been declared unfit to work as Amin and requisite entry has been made in this regard on 29.7.1995 by District Judge, Bareilly, and thereafter pursuant to order of this Court, entries have been made, mentioning that Appeal of petitioner has been dismissed, and punishment shall operate for period of five years and not permanently. Only ground on which petitioner has been compulsory retired is that complaint was made against petitioner for accepting bribe of Rs.50/- as expenses and making demand of Rs.500/- in Suit No.14 of 1994 Badlu Khan and other Vs. District Cane Officer and others while working as Amin and said charges were found proved in enquiry and punishment was awarded to petitioner on 24.7.1995 and against the imposition of said punishment, statutory appeal had been preferred before the Administrative Judge of this Court and said finding has been affirmed and only punishment, which has been awarded, has been modified by mentioning stoppage of two increments for five years only. It is true that against the said order, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26996 of 1999 has been filed, but mere filing of writ petition would not wipe out the said action taken against petitioner, and counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on following decision namely Baidya Nath Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa, 1989 4 SCC 664, R.S.Chauhan Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C., 1991 SCD 35 and Jayanta Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1998 AllLJ 239. The fact of the matter is that there is material on record, wherein District Judge, Bareilly on 17.7.1995/24.7.1995 has recorded finding against petitioner of accepting bribe of Rs.50/- and demanding Rs.500/- in Suit No.14 of 1994 while working as Amin. Said order has been affirmed in appeal also said finding is staring on the face of it. This Court will not re-appreciate the evidence, collaterally, qua the punishment which has been imposed upon petitioner, by scrutinizing the evidence of complainant. It is true that higher pay scale has been accorded and petitioner has been promoted, but in terms of Fundamental Rule 56 (2) (a) entries even prior to crossing of efficiency bar or before he was promoted can be taken into consideration, by the authority concerned, while proceeding to exercise authority of compulsorily retirement. Here, Screening Committee has formed opinion, and in public interest District Judge, Ballia has exercised his discretion. Interference is permissible only in three contingencies (i) opinion formed is malafide (ii) decision is based on no evidence (iii) and same is arbitrary decision. Here District Judge, Bareilly in his wisdom constituted Screening Committee and thereafter on the report of the Screening Committee decision in question has been taken. This Court is not a court of Appeal and settled ground on which order in question could be assailed, are not at all available in the present case as here opinion has been formed on the material available and said decision could not be termed to be arbitrary. Single act of petitioner touches the integrity of petitioner, as he has been found guilty of accepting bribe of Rs.50/- and demanding Rs.500/- and same is sufficient to compulsorily retire the petitioner. District Judge, Bareilly has not taken any selective action against the petitioner rather on the basis of recommendation made by the Screening Committee, action has been taken. The action taken is not against any particular individual; as on the same day, thirteen other incumbents have also been compulsorily retired out of 117 incumbents who were serened and attempt has been made to clear the system. Once decision has been taken, which is objective decision, then no interference is warranted.";