JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is directed against an order of compulsory retirement from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba against the petitioner, a Police Constable, in exercise of powers under Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Financial Handbook, Volume II (Part II-IV). The order impugned says that the Superintendent of Police is the Appointing Authority for the post held by the petitioner and that in public interest, he directs that the petitioner stands retired from service with effect from the date of the impugned order in the forenoon. The impugned order further says that the petitioner would be entitled to receive a sum equivalent to three months of his salary together with all allowances due, computed on the basis of his emoluments that he was receiving immediately before the date of retirement. The petitioner has come up challenging the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement dated 28th March, 2018, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the impugned order'.

2. It is the petitioner's case that his date of birth is 01.05.1963 and he is aged 55 years. He is physically and medically fit to perform his duties. The petitioner has been performing his duties with extraordinary devotion and integrity. His service record is unblemished and exemplary. The petitioner is an honest and diligent policeman. He has always discharged his duties with utmost responsibility and worked to the full satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on 20.02.1984 in the Uttar Pradesh Police, and after completing his training, has been discharging his duties regularly, until the date of the impugned order.

3. Pending admission, parties have exchanged affidavits in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 19.04.2018 – a counter on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and a rejoinder to it. A personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba was also required to be filed on an ancillary issue. That affidavit was filed and the matter dealt with. By an order dated 10.06.2022, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded on that day.

4. On 16.07.2022, when the matter came up, this Court vide order of that date also summoned the petitioner's service-book and all other records, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner's service-book was produced by the learned Standing Counsel on 21.07.2022. The service-book and the entries therein were perused by the Court. Thereafter, the records were directed to be placed in a sealed cover with the Registrar General.

5. The matter was adjourned on 04.08.2022 to 01.09.2022 without a hearing. The service-book that was forwarded to the Court in sealed cover by the Registrar General was not opened for the said reason on the dates that the matter was not heard. On 12.09.2022, a rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner to a counter affidavit dated 3rd August, 2022 on behalf of respondent No.5. The service-book received in sealed cover from the Registrar General was opened for the purpose of perusal and duly perused. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel were heard and judgment reserved.

6. Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

7. It is argued by Mr. Nand Kishore Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that no Screening Committee was constituted in accordance with the Government Orders dated 26.10.1985, 06.07.2017 and 08.09.2017, and the impugned order was passed by the Appointing Authority without the Screening Committee's appraisal. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police in colourable exercise of powers under Fundamental Rule 56(c), ordering the petitioner's compulsory retirement. It is also argued that the