Mrs. S. Dikshit, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.80 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is neither bona fide nor has been passed in public interest. It has further been challenged on the ground of having been passed arbitrarily with mala fide intention as the same is based on no material whatsoever. The order is also alleged to be punitive in nature, hence the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the same.
(2.) The facts, in brief, relevant for the purposes of the present petition are as follows: The petitioner entered into ministerial service of the civil court, Lucknow, on 21.11.45. Initially he joined the post in officiating capacity as Copyist and thereafter was confirmed on 1.11.48. Due to his satisfactory and good performance, he was promoted from time to time as and when the same fell due. He was given the revised pay scale also with effect from 3.8.72 and onwards. The petitioner claims that from 1945 to 1976, i.e., for about 31 years, he worked to the entire satisfaction of the opposite parties and no adverse entry in his character roll was ever recorded. His superiors always considered him to be good, disciplined and honest employee. Unfortunately, in the year 1976 the then District Judge Sri B.L. Goel somehow got antagonised against the petitioner as a consequence thereof three censure entries in succession were awarded to the petitioner on 12.7.76. 26.7.76 and 12.8.76. The possible reason according to the petitioner could be that as elected Secretary of the local Ministerial Association, he had to take up the cause of the member employees to the dislike of the District Judge. According to the petitioner, the employees were by and large unhappy in the regime of Sri Goel as 90 per cent of the staff was awarded adverse entries without any basis and various orders prejudicial to the interest of the employees were also passed by the learned District Judge. The aforesaid three entries read as follows : 1. "Censured for delaying disposal of urgent application No. 3 of 6.11.75 by about five months on account of his negligence in sending the application to the Court of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, instead of Record Room when working as Head Copyist." 2. "Censured for lack of supervision and for negligence when working as Head Copyist in the month of November, 1975 resulting in issue of incomplete copy of application No. 27 of 12.11.1975."
(3.) "Severely censured for gross negligence in not checking the decree of O.S. No. 684 of 1971 of the Court of Munsif South and for lack of supervision when working as Munsarim of that Court in May. 1976." 3. All these remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner. He, therefore, made representations against remark Nos. 2 and 3 through proper channel. In the said representations, he duly explained the reasons why the said orders could not be checked up by him. He further stated therein that he was censured even without first calling for an explanation which shows that the learned District Judge was trying to find something against him for which he could be punished. The said representations, however, remained pending and had not been decided till the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner apprehended that the learned District Judge did not initially forward the same to the High Court and the same were forwarded only after the passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Not only this, a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner for which a charge-sheet dated 2.3.77 was served upon him with the allegation that the petitioner had convened a meeting of the Association in the Court Room of the Small Cause Court in the Court premises on 4.1.77 without obtaining prior permission of the District Judge or the Judge of the Small Causes Court or any other superior authority, therefore, he committed an act of insubordination and misconduct. While all this was going on, local lawyers working in the District Courts also agitated against the negative attitude of the said District Judge in general which ultimately resulted into the transfer of the District Judge Sri Goel and the then First Additional District Judge, Lucknow, took over as Officiating District Judge. Besides facing humiliation, the petitioner was also threatened that he shall be compulsorily retired if he would not seek either voluntary retirement or reversion to the next lower post. This threat was communicated to him through other Additional District Judges whose names have been mentioned in the writ petition. Though the petitioner was very agitated on this kind of threat but on the advice of other Additional District Judges, he opted for reversion to the next lower post vide his latter dated 29.1.77. He was accordingly brought down in the pay scale of Rs 230-380. After the transfer of the said learned District Judge, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 30.5.77 to the new incumbent Sri Murli Dhar to again promote him to the second grade with effect from 31.1.77 because he had himself sought his reversion in the peculiar facts and circumstances in which he was placed. This representation was duly considered by the then District Judge, Sri Murli Dhar who vide his detailed order dated 18.11.77 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not an official who could be superseded and, therefore, accepted the representation to bring him up in the higher grade and provided that as soon as a next vacancy is caused, he shall be adjusted against it, however, the question of seniority shall be determined on a future date. The departmental enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner was also dropped on 23.11.77. Copies of both these orders dated 18.11.77 and 23.11.77 have been annexed as Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition. On 9.7.80 the learned District Judge. Lucknow, confirmed the petitioner also in the higher grade of Rs. 250-425 with effect from 1.4.78.;