RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who was Senior Clerk in the office of Transport Commissioner, has assailed the order of compulsory retirement dated 11.8.2005 inter alia on the grounds that (i) the criteria applied for screening out of the deadwood was arbitrary and manifestly illegal ; (ii) the entire service career of the petitioner (35 years) has remained unblemished ; (iii) the petitioner cannot be declared as a deadwood on the basis of single adverse entry ; and lastly, the U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 does not provide the compulsory retirement as one of the punishment. Learned standing counsel has submitted that the petitioner's service as indicated in the counter-affidavit shows that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and therefore, no fault can be attributed to the action taken by the authority in passing the order of compulsory retirement.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, invited the attention of the Court towards a judgment rendered by this Court in Chander Prasad Verma v. State of U. P. and others, 2006 (24) LCD 340, in which also, by the order of the same date, another employee against which there was single adverse entry was also retired compulsorily. This Court set aside the order of compulsory retirement dated 11.8.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Transportation and held that the appointing authority has arbitrarily exercised its power and has failed to take into account the total record of service of the petitioner and the matter was not objectively considered. The case of the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, is almost identical and is on same footing.;