- (1.) OM Prakash, J. By order dated 3-1-1986 (Annexure "5" to the writ petition) the petitioner was compulsorily retired by Sri Shiv Kumar Sharma, the then Managing Director, U. P. Jal Nigam, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner on the ground, as stated in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, that ". . . . that there is absolutely no material on which the appointing authority could have reasonably come to the conclusion that the petitioner can be retired in public interest. "
(2.) THE facts in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assis tant Engineer in the U. P. Jal Nigam on 29-1-1965 in the then Local Self Government Engineering Department of Uttar Pradesh by an order dated 29-1-1965 (Annexure "1" to the writ petition ). In 1975 the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act came to be passed (briefly, 'the Act' ). Section 3 of the Act provides for establishment of the Jal Nigam and so the Jal Nigam was created under the Act. Section 3 (3) of the Act declared that the Nigam shall for all purposes be deemed to be a local authority. Section 37 of the Act provides that all the employees of the erstwhile Local Self-Government Engineering Department of the State Government shall become employees of the Nigam from the appointed date and they shall hold their office in the Nigam on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges. This is how the petitioner ceased to be the employee of the erstwhile Local Self-Government Engineering Department and became the employee of the Nigam with effect from 18-6-1975. THE petitioner was temporarily promoted as Executive Engineer in the Jal Nigam by an order dated 23-10-1977 (Annexure "3" to the writ petition ). He was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the scale of Executive Engineer with effect from 1-10-1978 (see paragraph 11 of the petition ). In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it is stated that no adverse character roll entry was ever communicated to the petitioner and that as Executive Engineer his service record remained unblamished. This is how the petitioner contended that there was no material on record to enable the authority to come to the conclusion that his compulsory retirement was necessary in the public interest. In the counter-affidavit filed for the Jal Nigam it is not disputed that the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer with effect from 26-10-1977, that he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the scale of Executive Engineer with effect from 1-10-1978, that he was con firmed as Assistant Engineer with effect from 19-12-1983 and that no adverse character roll entry was ever communicated to him. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, AIR 1992 SC 1020 the Supreme Court considering the whole range of case law on compulsory retirement enunciated the following principles : " (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judi cial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide, or (b) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short ; if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) 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 rolls, both favour able 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. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. The circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. "
(3.) CLOSE to the heels of the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), the Supreme Court in S, Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, JT 1994 (5) SC 459 reiterated : "the whole purpose of the rule is to weed out the worthless without the punitive extremes covered by Article 311 of the Constitu tion, after all, Administration, to be efficient, must not be manned by drones, do nothings, incompetents and unworthiers. They may not be delinquent who must be punished but may be a burden on the Administration if by insensitive, insouciant, unintelligent or dubious conduct impede the flow or promote stagnation. In a country where speed, sensitivity, probity, and non-irritative public relations and enthusiastic creativity are urgently needed, paper logged processes and callous cadres are the besetting sin of the Administration. It is in public interest to retire a never do well, but to juggle with confidential reports when a man's career is at stake is a confidence trick contrary to public interest. Moreover, confidential reports are often subjec tive, impressionistic and must receive sedulous checking as basis for decision making. The appropriate authority, not the court, makes the decision, but even so, a caveat is necessary to avoid misuse. " It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retire ment is not a punishment and the Government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension, the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corrup tion and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest.;