- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Being aggrieved by order of his compuslory retire ment dated 11-6-1993, passed under U. P. Fundamental Rule 56, petitioner, who was Tahsildar in the service of the State Government, has filed this writ petition. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that there was no material before the concerned authorities, which could form the basis of their subjective satisfaction retiring the petitioner compulsorily in public interest and as such the order is perverse and arbitrary.
(2.) IN paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed on the basis of the report of the Screening Committee, adverse entries awarded to the petitioner and other papers. Copy of the report of the Screening Committee has been filed as Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit, according to which the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was recom mended on two grounds, viz. , (i) order dated 12-2- 1993, whereby the peti tioner's integrity was withheld and direction for recovery of Rs. 40,000 from him was made ; and (ii) an adverse entry of doubtful integrity for the year 1976-77. Against the aforesaid order dated 12-2-1993 petitioner filed a writ petition No. 13-78 of 1993 before this Court, which was allowed and the order dated 12-2-1993 was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21-7-1995. Therefore, one of the two grounds on the basis of which the Screening Committee recommended the petitioner's compulsory retirement from service, does not exist. What remains now is only the entry for the year 1976-'77. The question is whether the order of compulsory retirement could have been recommended on the basis of the said entry. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, AIR 1992 SC 1020, Supreme Court has laid down that the Government or the Review Committee, as the case may be, has to consider the entire service record of the employs attachIng more importance to record of and perfor mance durIng the later years before passIng an order of compulsory retirement. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced blow : "the Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before takIng a decision In the matter-of course attachIng more importance to record of and performance durIng the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally Include the entries In the confidential records/character tolls, both favourable and adverse, if a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstandIng the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their stIng, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. " (Emphasis supplied) It was further held that order so passed can be challenged by the aggrieved employees on three grounds, namely, (i) it was passed mala fide ; (ii) it is based on no evidence ; and (iii) it is arbitrary. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 111, Supreme Court has reiterated the same prInciple by holdIng as under : "the entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maIntaIned would furnish the back drop material for considera tion by the Government or the Review Committee or the appro priate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Govt. should from the opInion that the Govt. officer needs to be compulsorily retired from I 'service. Therefore, the entire service record more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opInion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government Officer. " (Emphasis supplied) In the case of S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, the order of compulsory retirement was passed on the solitary adverse report for the year 1987-88, Supreme Court quashed that order holding it to be arbitrary. Again in Narsingh Patnaik v. State of Orissa, JT 1996 (3) SC 754, Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (supra) for judging the validity of the order of com pulsory retirement. In Narsingh Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (supra) the order of compulsory retirement was passed on the basis of adverse entries for the years 1975-76 and 1977-78 as well as certain proceedings and inquiries instituted against the appellant therein. However, all the procee dings and inquiries and the action taken pursuant thereto were dropped, with the result that the only materials, which ultimately remained to support the order of compulsory retirement were the adverse entries for the years 1975-76 and 1977-78. Supreme Court quashed the order of compul sory retirement holding "that the adverse remarks in the annual confidential reports for the years 1975-76 and 1977-78 referred to above, by themselves cannot sustain the opinion leading to the compulsory retirement of the appellant on the basis that further retention of the appellant in the service was not in public interest. "one of the reasons given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that after 1977-78 the performance of the appellant therein was appraised as 'good'.
(3.) IN the instant case the Screening Committee based its decision only on two grounds mentioned before, one of which has ceased to exist and what remained is the entry for the year 1976-77. The Screening Committee did not consider the good service record and performance of the petitioner of the later years, although it was its duty to consider his entire record of service, more particularly of the later years before recommending his com pulsory retirement. The recommendation of the Screening Committee thus, suffers from serious infirmities. The order of compulsory retirement could not have been passed on the basis of such a report of the Screening Committee. The detail of other papers/records, which the Government claims to have taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, have been given in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, which refers to the order dated 12-2-1 ;93 and the entries awarded to the petitioner for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The order dated 12-2-1993 and the entry for the year 1976-77 are the same, which were relied upon by the Screening Committee while recommending the petitioner's compulsory retirement. As mentioned earlier the order dated 12-2-1993 has already been quashed by this Court. The entry for the year 1977-78 mentions not taking of interest in his work by the petitioner. Entry for the year 1978-79 is also of similar nature. Not acting in a responsible manner is the entry for the year 1979-80. From the report of the Screening Committee, it is clear that these entries were not taken into consideration by it. Th it apart, it is nowhere mention that the good record of service and performance of the petitioner from the year 1980-81 onward were considered. The Screening Committee recommended for compulsory retirement and the State Govern ment passed the impugned order on the basis of the stale entries of the remote past wit lout taking into consideration petitioner's good record and performance of the later years. Such an order cannot be sustained, being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the eases mentioned hereinbefore, according to which the Screening Committee and the State Government, as the case may be, has to consider the entire service record attaching more importance to the record and performance of the concerned employee of the latest years.;