CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working in the Forest Department of the Government of U.P., being aggrieved by an order of compulsory retirement dated 15th February, 1992 purported to be passed in exercise of power under Fundamental Rules 56-C, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Ranger on 1.4.1967 and thereafter he was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Conservator of Forests vide order dated 14.7.1978. The petitioner was also selected for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests by the Public Service Commission, U.P. and in view of the selection he was continuing on the said post. The order of compulsory retirement dated 15.2.1992 is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition which reads that the petitioner is being retired 'in public interest'.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner while putting his challenge to the order of compulsory retirement submitted that the order is per se bad, as it cannot be said to have been passed in public interest nor the record of the petitioner's service indicates that there was any material before the appointing authority to reach to a conclusion that the petitioner has lost his utility in service and has turned out to be dead wood so as to oust him from service. Further submission is that since the order of compulsory retirement is not based on objective consideration of the character roll entries and achievement of the petitioner in service, the said order cannot be sustained. Further argument is that weightage has been given to the character roll entries of remote past and the fact of crossing Efficiency Bar after the previous adverse entries and the later entries which were not adverse have not been given due weightage. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that the petitioner's integrity has been certified throughout which constitute one of the major factor in considering the case of compulsory retirement, but the appointing authority has not given any consideration to the said fact. Apart from this, we have been taken through the adverse entries of various years to indicate that the petitioner has been placed in category 'good' but even then such entries have been taken to be adverse and the entries which are advisory in nature have also been relied upon for the purpose of retiring the petitioner compulsorily.