Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saral Srivastava, J.
Adityendra Sharma - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
WRIT -A No. - 26110 of 2018
Decided On : 23-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Writ petition - Petitioner was suspended on charge that he had not been performing his duties properly and had not abide by orders of his superiors - In disciplinary proceeding, petitioner was awarded punishment of reversion of minimum pay scale on post of Senior Assistant - Petitioner compulsorily retired in public interest to enhance efficiency in department and to make atmosphere corruption-free - Screening committee after considering entire service record of petitioner formed an opinion that petitioner has outlived his utility in department and is deadwood and screening committee recommended for compulsory retirement of petitioner.
Finding of the court :
A joint reading of various letters to counter affidavit with report of screening committee, it is evident that screening committee has considered entire record and was not at all influenced only by the order passed by the Chief Election Officer instituting disciplinary proceeding against petitioner in forming opinion that petitioner should be compulsorily retired as his continuance in department is not in public interest - A perusal of report of screening committee discloses that the order of the Chief Election Officer instituting disciplinary proceeding was not before it, hence, it cannot be said that decision of screening committee was influenced by order or the order of compulsory retirement has been passed to cut short disciplinary proceeding - There is no infirmity in order of compulsory retirement.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by respondent no.2-Chief Election Officer, U.P., Lucknow by which he has been compulsory retired and the consequential order dated 30.10.2018 passed by respondent no.3-Additional District Magistrate (Administration)/Deputy District Election Officer, Bulandshahar intimating the order dated 29.10.2018.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 19.06.1990 in the office of District Election Officer. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 01.07.2011 on the charge that he had not been performing his duties properly and had not abide by the orders of his superiors. Thereafter, an enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded punishment by placing him on the minimum pay scale by order dated 16.02.2016.
4. It appears that the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow issued an order on 06.07.2017 to all Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary, U.P. Government to forward the details of all employees working in their department who have completed fifty years on 31.07.2017 for screening them for compulsory retirement. The cut-off date of fifty years was 31.03.2017.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the Chief Election Officer, UP, Lucknow wrote a letter dated 12.07.2017, addressed to all District Election Officers, the State of U.P. Whereby he asked them to supply details of employees who have completed fifty years on 31.03.2017 to screen them for compulsory retirement.
6. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue)/Deputy District Election Officer, Hathras by letter dated 28.07.2017 sent the details of all the employees including the petitioner to the Chief Election Officer, U.P., Lucknow. According to the said report, the services of the petitioner are satisfactory.
7. The District Election Officer, Hathras by letter dated 22.09.2017 submitted a report to the Chief Election Officer, UP, Lucknow stating therein that the petitioner has given full cooperation in successfully conducting the election of General Assembly-2017. However, the Chief Election Officer in the exercise of power under Rule 56(c) of Fundamental Rules passed an order on 29.10.2018 retiring the petitioner compulsorily. According to the said order/notice, the petitioner will retire after three months of the said order/notice. The order dated 29.10.2018 was communicated by respondent no.3-Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to the petitioner on 30.10.2018.
8. The further, case of the petitioner is that the Chief Election Officer, UP, Lucknow by order dated 17.07.2018 initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, and the District Election Officer, Bulandshahar was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. The Chief Election Officer, UP, Lucknow by order dated 20.08.2018 changed the Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry against the petitioner.
9. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 1996 and not in the year 2018. In the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of reversion of the minimum pay scale on the post of Senior Assistant by order dated 16.02.2016. The respondents have further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was compulsorily retired in the public interest to enhance efficiency in the department and to make the atmosphere corruption-free. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the conduct and reputation of the petitioner were such that his continuance in service would have been a menace and injurious to the public interest. To sup
Point of law : Order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner is based upon subjective satisfaction of the entire record of the petitioner more particularly the recent record of the petitioner....
An order of compulsory retirement must be based on a thorough assessment of the entire service record of the employee, and if it casts a stigma or is based solely on disciplinary actions without cons....
Compulsory retirement of judicial officers is based on overall performance and integrity, not merely on disciplinary findings, and is not considered a punishment.
The importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the employer's right to remove 'dead wood' employees.
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
Compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is justified based on subjective satisfaction regarding integrity, even with adverse entries, and judicial review is limited to the decision-making process....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
