IMPORTANT POINT
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 considering commendations, it is liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

1. Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to quash the order dated 7.11.2019 passed by the State Government, compulsory retiring the petitioner and also quash the order dated 22.10.2019, by which the petitioner was awarded major penalty, i.e., stoppage of two increments for 5 years with temporary effect and one minor penalty of censure in terms of Rules 3 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal), Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1999"). The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 20.9.2018 passed by the Director General of Police, by which the penalty of censure has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 3 of aforesaid Rules of 1999 as well as appellate order dated 1.5.2019.

3. The facts as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition are that the petitioner was directly recruited in the year 1998 on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. During the course of duty in an encounter with Munna Bajrangi gang, the petitioner received five AK-47 bullet injuries. After recovering from the said injuries the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Inspector in 2001 and he was also awarded with Presidential Medal.

4. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 11.7.2016 and was posted at Zamania District Ghazipur on 18.7.2016. He was suspended on 15.11.2016 on the basis of some enquiry conducted by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural) Ghazipur. However, the said suspension was revoked on 3.1.2017. Thereafter he was served a charge-sheet dated 9.9.2017. In the said charge-sheet, following charges were levelled against the petitioner :-

5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge- sheet on 11.1.2018. The Enquiry Officer, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Zone, Azamgarh submitted his enquiry report on 5.7.2018. It is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the Enquiry Officer, while recording its finding in paragraph 9 of the enquiry report, has not at all considered the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The enquiry report dated 5.7.2018 was served upon the petitioner on 27.11.2018, directing him to submit his reply, which was submitted by the petitioner on 5.2.2019. The respondent no. 1 by an order dated 22.10.2019, imposed penalties, i.e., stoppage of two increments for 5 years with temporary effect along with censure entry.

6. It is further stated in the writ petition that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by Shri Keshav Chandra Goswami, ASP, City, Ghazipur, it was held that no charge has been proved against the petitioner. However, inspite of the same without any basis or disagreeing with the preliminary report dated 31.12.2016, the said enquiry report dated 31.12.2016 was forwarded to two officers, i.e., Sri Kamlesh Dixit, ASP and Dr. Anil Kumar Pandey, ASP who were of the equivalent rank i.e., ASP, for reviewing the report dated 31.12.2016. There is no provision for reviewing the preliminary enquiry report under the law. It is important to point out here that both the officers namely Sri Kamlesh Dixit and Dr. Anil Kumar Pandey did not make any enquiry independently rather reviewed the report submitted by Shri Keshav Chandra Goswami dated 31.12.2016 and formed their opinion. The said preliminary enquiry conducted by Shri Keshav Chandra Goswami, A.S.P., City, Ghazipur has not been considered. It is stated that the petitioner has been awarded double punishment i.e. stoppage of increments and censure entry for one and same charge.

7. By an order dated 20.9.2018, the petitioner was granted censure entry under Rule 3(1) of Rules of 1999. It is further stated that for awarding the said censure entry, no reason