- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri S. S. L. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
(2.) UNDER challenge is an order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner on 11-8-2005 by the Additional Transport Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow. The petitioner has been compulsorily retired after working for about thirty and half years at the age of 51 years. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that the opinion to retire the petitioner compulsorily has been formed only on the basis of a single adverse entry, the order of punishment passed on 20-9-2001. There was no other adverse material in the service record of the petitioner except this adverse remark for the year 2001-02. As per the learned Counsel for the petitioner his entire service record was clean and even after awarding of the punishment on 20-9-2001, he has earned excellent entries. The petitioner has placed some documents along with the writ petition to demonstrate that for the year 2001-02, he was rated as efficient worker. In the year 2004-05, he was given special remark and rated as an excellent worker. Similar assessment was made in respect of petitioner on 6-2-2005 and 28-7-2005. The petitioner was branded as an excellent worker during the period from 2001 to 2005, the years preceding the issuance to impugned order of compulsory retirement. In view of the submissions made in the writ petition, the petitioner has laid stress that the order of compulsory retirement is wholly arbitrary and mala fide. The total record of service of the petitioner was not taken into consideration objectively. There is no justification for compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the basis of a solitary adverse remark. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments as reported in 1985 (1) SCC 134, Hans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. , and 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 424, S. Rama Chandra Raju v. State of Orissa, and a Division Bench decision of this Court as reported in 2002 (1) LBESR 160 (All) : 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1079, Phool Chandra Yadav v. State of U. P. & Ors. , in support of his submissions.
(3.) SRI S. S. L. SRIvastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order is punitive as the matter relating to departmental inquiry was placed before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee has not considered the other entries that the petitioner has earned all the increments, crossed E. B. and has also earned his promotion etc. on due dates. The petitioner has already been awarded minor penalty on 20-9-2001. He has already suffered for whatever done by him. The petitioner has represented against the order of punishment by submitting representation to the appropriate authority. Since the petitioner's representation was pending, the order of punishment could not have been issued against the petitioner for retiring him compulsorily. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the order suffers from principle of double jeopardy. The petitioner was already punished for the alleged misconduct. The events cited in the order dated 20-9-2001, were relating to the years 1992 to 1997. The inquiry has resulted in awarding of punishment on 20-9-2001 and after about four years of passing of this punishment order, it was highly improper to dismiss or remove the petitioner from service in the garb of order of compulsory retirement. He has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court as reported in 1994 (12) LCD 639, Rajjan Lal Srivastava v. State of U. P. & Ors. , in support of his submissions.;