- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi and S. P. Srivastava, JJ. Feeling aggrieved by the order com pulsorily retiring the petitioner from ser vice exercising the jurisdiction con templated under the amended Fundamen tal Rule 56, he has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order alongwith the consequential order issued by the Principal wherein com municating the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner was required to vacate the official residence provided to him.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Coun sel as well as the learned Standing Counsel at some length and have perused the record. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 24-7-1992, learned Stand ing Counsel has produced the entire record containing the proceedings cul minating in the impugned order which has also been looked into. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner claims to have been selected for appoint ment on the post of Principal of Govern ment Leather Institute, Kanpur on 15-12-1977 by departmental selection commit tee and joined the said post on 8-3-1978. Later on since the post fell within the purview of the Public Service Commis sion, the petitioner appeared before the Public Service Commission and was selected on 2-3-1982 and his appointment on the post stood regularised. He attained the age of 50 years in January, 1988. It is claimed that his case was examined by the Screening Committee who declared the petitioner fit to continue in service. How ever, although a second screening is not permissible yet he was compulsorily retired exercising the jurisdiction con templated under Fundamental Rule 56. It is claimed that the State Government had taken a policy decision as evident from the letter dated 6th February, 1989, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition that ordinarily once the screening committee had recommended that employee should be retained in ser vice while examining the matter relating to his compulsory retirement on his attaining the age of 50 years in that event ordinarily the employee should be allowed to con tinue till he attained the age of superan nuation. Tie petitioner has also chal lenged the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed against him on the ground that it was based on adverse entries claimed to have been awarded to him without deciding the representations filed against them by the petitioner and that the impugned action stood vitiated on ac count of malice and bias. Allegations of mala fides have been levelled against Sri G. S. Sharma, the Director of Technical Education who continued to hold this post till the year 1986 when he was replaced by Sri K. B. Shukla. The allegation of mala fides have also been levelled against Sri K. B. Shukla, Director of Technical Educa tion. He has also alleged mala fides against Sri M. A. Quraishi, the Joint Director of Technical Education, Meerut Division and J. B. Gupta, the Director of Education.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been pointed out that the letter dated 6th February, 1989 relied upon by the petitioner itself provides that in those cases where important facts came to the knowledge of the appointing authority the proceedings for compulsory retirement could be initiated exercising the jurisdic tion contemplated under Fundamental Rule 56 and irrespective of the fact that on the attaining of the age of 50 years, the case has been examined by the Screening Com mittee, the case of the concerned employee may be put up before the ex perienced screening committee. It has fur ther been pointed out that in fact on his attaining the age of 50years, the case of the petitioner was put up before the Screening Committee but the Screening Committee vide its resolution dated 15th November, 1988 had deferred the consideration of the matter relating to the petitioner indicating that his case for compulsory retirement will be considered in the next year. Later on the case of the petitioner was con sidered by the competent screening com mittee which recommended for his com pulsory retirement. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner for the years 1982-83 to 1988-89. So far as the assertions made by the petitioner about the pendency of his representation regarding the adverse entries communicated to him is con cerned, it has been asserted that only two representations against the adverse entries for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 had been submitted by the petitioner which were rejected as time barred. It has further been asserted that the Govern ment Order relied upon by the petitioner was not attracted at all and the impugned order which was based on the satisfaction reached on the basis of the relevant materials on the record was not liable to be interfered with in the present proceedings. So far as the petitioner's allegations regarding the impugned order being vitiated on account of mala fides is con cerned it had been contended that this plea is liable to be ignored as the officers against whom the allegations of mala fides have been made have not been impleaded co-nominee in the writ petition.;