- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohan Yadav, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Collection Peon in the year 1994 in a substantive capacity and continued to work in that capacity till he was compulsorily retired under Rule 56 (c) of the Financial Handbook on 8th of September, 2005. THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed and the record has also been produced. The report of the screening committee indicates that the petitioner was certified as "physically unfit". Further, general remarks were levelled against the petitioner and others, namely, that several warnings were given, adverse entries were made, in spite of which, the incumbents had not improved their working, and therefore, there was no other choice except to recommend compulsory retirement. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have further tried to strengthen their case contending that the petitioner did not obey the orders of the superior authorities, that he was careless in his work, that he was working against the rules and connived with those persons against whom recovery orders were issued, and thus, misused the facilities granted by the State. The respondents further contended that the recovery made by him was not upto 70% as contemplated under the rules, and that, whenever the recovery season began, the petitioner took medical leave.
(3.) THIS Court has perused the original record as well as the service book of the petitioner and the Court finds that the general allegations made in the report of the screening committee, namely, that warning and adverse entry is not based on any documentary evidence. There is no entry of the like nature in the service book of the petitioner. No document has been placed before the Court, nor has been annexed with the counter affidavit to indicate that warning letters had been issued to the petitioner in the past, and that he had been given an adverse entry in his service record. Consequently, the general allegations made by the Screening Committee against the petitioner is unfounded as is not based on any evidence on record. In so far as the contention of the respondents made in the counter affidavit is concerned, the said allegations are also based on non-existing facts and is not supported by any documentary proof. The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show a single document relating to the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit except one document, namely, a chart showing that the petitioner did not make any recovery during the collection period, and that, during that period, the petitioner had taken medical leave. The learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon's Service Rules, 2004 and submitted that in view of the Explanation to Rule 5, the petitioner was required to recover a minimum of 70% of the dues during the four Fasals. Explanation to Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon's Service Rules, 2004 states as under: "explanation.-Satisfactory work shall mean extending full cooperation in at least seventy per cent realisation as per prescribed standard fixed by the Government during the last four Fasals and good conduct throughout. ";