V.M.Sahai, J, - (1.) A short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether an employee can be compulsorily retired by the screening committee itself without there being an order passed by the appointment authority compulsorily retiring him.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as copyist in Collectorate, Kanpur on 17.3.1962 on Class III post. He was promoted as Wasil Waki Navis in 1989. By order dated 21.12.1994 the petitioner has been compulsorily retired by the screening committee.
(3.) Shri A. K. Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in view of the Government Order dated 26.10.1985 Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner could be compulsorily retired by the appointment authority in public interest either by three months" notice or by paying three months' salary. No such notice or pay was given to the petitioner by the respondents. The other argument of Shri Singh was that after an order was passed by the screening committee, the appointing authority was required to pass an order retiring the petitioner. He urged that merely because the appointment authority was in the screening committee, it would not mean that the order of compulsory retirement was passed by him. The learned counsel submitted that the order was contrary to Government Order dated 26.10.1985, as the report of the screening committee was required to be considered by the appointing authority. Shri Gautam Chatterjee standing counsel has supported the impugned order on the ground that even if the appointing authority has not passed any separate order compulsorily retiring the petitioner, since he was a member of screening committee, the order passed by the screening committee is just and proper and no separate order was required to be passed by the appointment authority.;