U. K. Dhaon, and S. S. Chauhan, JJ. - (1.) THE petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order of compulsory retirement dated 22.4.2002 has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile U. P. Electricity Board in the year 1980. He was later on promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1990-91 and thereafter to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 1999. The petitioner could not discharge his duties due to illness from 16.8.1999 to 18.5.2000 and the said period of leave was regularised by means of the order dated 26.4.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to perform his duties on the post of Superintending Engineer without any hindrance. Sri Udai Narain joined as Chief General Manager on 2.7.2001 and the petitioner did not come to the office after 2.7.2001, as is evident from the report dated 28.8.2001 submitted by Sri Udai Narain, i.e., the date on which he has joined. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of absenting himself from duty. The petitioner's case was thereafter considered by the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee found that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service as he has become dead wood and his services were of no utility to the department and, therefore, he should be compulsorily retired. The Screening Committee took into consideration the censure entry dated 24.2.2000 and also the adverse report submitted by Sri Udai Narain dated 28.8.2001, wherein he has specifically mentioned that the petitioner was habitual drinker and was also a drug addict and as such he has become physically unfit to be continued in service and disciplinary proceedings were also going on against him at the time when the Screening Committee considered his case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the three grounds, which have been taken into consideration by the Screening Committee, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed are false, baseless and irrelevant. He submits that the adverse entry, which was awarded to him on 24.2.2000, was with respect to audit which was started on 8.10.1996 and came to an end on 2.5.1997 for the period July, 1990 to March, 1995 and the report of the audit team which has been filed as Annexure-S.A. 1 alongwith the supplementary-affidavit dated 25.4.2005, reveals that neither any adverse opinion has been expressed nor any shortcoming has been pointed out by the audit team against the petitioner, but inspite of that the petitioner was issued notice dated 31.12.1998 and ultimately he was awarded censure entry dated 24.2.2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the adverse entry, which was awarded to the petitioner, was not in context of any misconduct, but in fact it was baseless and on non-est ground as the petitioner had never been posted there from the years 1990 to 1995 and he was only required to assist the audit team to which he extended full support and so there is no misconduct on his part. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ground of habitual drinker and the drug addict was also without any basis as evident from the report dated 28.8.2001 submitted by Sri Udai Narain which does not indicate in what manner and on the basis of which material it was assessed by Sri Udai Narain that the petitioner was a habitual drinker and a drug addict. The counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the third ground by submitting that during the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, the order of compulsory retirement should be taken as punishment and the said order cannot be sustained.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another, (2002) 10 SCC 590 ; State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 (2) AWC 1024 (SC) and M. P. Electricity Board v. Shree Baboo, (2002) 9 SCC 704 : 2001 (2) AWC 1445 (SC), and contended that the nature of the adverse entry was not of such gravity which warrants compulsorily retirement of the petitioner. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation denying the allegations made in the writ petition and it has been stated that the petitioner was awarded adverse remarks in his annual confidential report for the period 16.9.1994 to 31.10.1994, which was later on expunged on 5.6.1997. It has further been contended in the counter-affidavit that annual confidential report for the period 4.2.1995 and onwards were not received, but he was promoted due to some technical reasons. THE opposite parties have denied the promotion of the petitioner on the basis of merit. THE malice levelled against Sri Udai Narain has been denied in para 11 of the counter-affidavit and it has been contended that he being the immediate superior officer had the opportunity to look into the work of the petitioner and the office report submitted by him was without any bias. THE High Level Committee constituted for the purpose examined the records of various officers and found 8 Deputy General Managers, including the petitioner not fit to be retained in service. THE petitioner was compulsorily retired in public interest and the order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be interfered by this Court. The learned counsel for the opposite party to substantiate his argument, has relied upon the cases of State of U. P. and another v. Bihari Lal, AIR 1995 SC 1161 ; State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92 ; State of U. P. and another v. Lalsa Ram, (2001) 3 SCC 389 : 2001 (2) AWC 1018 (SC) and R. P. Pandey v. U. P. Power Corporation Limited and others, 2004 (22) LCD 20.;