U P JAL NIGAM Vs. SYEDKHADIMWARIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-Executive Engineer, on attaining the age of fifty was compulsorily retired by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in exercise of powers under Rule 56 (c) of the Financial Hand Book Part II, Volumes 2 to 4. The respondent successfully challenged that order before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High court by means of a writ petition. The prime consideration which weighed with the High court deciding in his favour was that an adverse entry of the year 1983-84, though communicated to the respondent on 9/4/1985, had been put to use to arrive at the result, when representation of the respondent against the adverse entry was pending before the Nigam. As viewed by the High court, that particular entry could not be put to use unless the representation was decided. The High court has emphasised this aspect in its judgment at more than one place. The High court has also blamed the Nigam for not producing before it the text of the entry pertaining to the year 1983-84 so as to apprise itself of the nature and seriousness thereof.

(2.) The Nigam asserts to the contrary. It says that not only was the entry adverted to in the counter-affidavit filed by it before the High court, but it was specifically averred therein that the representation of the respondent received had by itself been placed before the Screening Committee dealing with the matter whereafter action for compulsory retirement was taken. It seems that the supportive records of the same were not produced before the High court. It is suggested that had the High court thought of making use of the material on official record, It could certainly have asked the counsel for the Jal Nigam to place the record before it. Seemingly, the pleadings alone engaged attention of the High court and it went on to hold that the sole adverse entry for the year 1983-84, against which representation of the respondent was pending, could not be taken into account. It is on that basis that the order of compulsory retirement was quashed.

(3.) Now, we have been apprised of the total service record of the respondent, wherefrom we know now about the nature of the said entry and the representation and their placement before the Screening Committee. Another factor which has been discovered, and has rather frankly been put before us by the learned counsel for the Nigam is that the subsequent year's entry i. e. for the year 1984-85, is. also adverse to the respondent, but the same has not beencommunicated to him and yet it was employed in passing the orders of compulsory retirement. It might well be that the said adverse entry of the year 1984-85 by itself or in conjunction with the entry of the year 1983-84 might have influenced the authorities much more than the singular entry of the year 1983-84 to take action. Mention of this particular is not meant to reinforce the basis of the reasoning of the High court or employed as additional reasoning in support, because that entry has not yet been ripened to be taken into account since it has not been communicated to the respondent soliciting representation from him.