Rajesh Singh Chauhan - (1.) Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Verma, learned State Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of notification dated 14.6.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Wild Life, by means of which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired invoking the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(c) providing him salary equivalent to the salary and allowances for the period of three months.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement dated 14.6.2018 on the ground that the Screening Committee has not properly examined the material in respect of service record of the petitioner and in the garb of simplicitor order the punitive order has been passed which is not permissible in the eyes of law. In support of his aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited couple of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. The details thereof is being indicated herein below: "1. (Smt.) S.R. Venkatraman Vs. Union of India and another, 1979 AIR(SC) 49, 2. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 13 JT 643 SC, 3. Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, 2009 2 SCC 592 , 4. HMT Ltd. and another vs. Mudappa and others, 2007 3 JT 112 SC, 5. Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 2 SCC 299 . 6. State of U.P. and othrs vs. Abhai Kishor Masta,1995 1 SCC 366 , page 8, 7. State of U.P. vs. Madan Mohan Nagar, 1967 AIR(SC) 1260 passed by Constitution Bench, Para 13 and 14, 8. Judgment and order dated 24.5.2018 passed in W.P. No. 22687(S/S) of 2017, Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & others, 9. Judgment and order dated 1.3.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 34272 of 2005, Bhagwan Das vs. State of U.P. and others.;