VILAS TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was Additional Commissioner (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) a post of Provincial Services, (P. C. S.) cadre in which he was promoted from the lower cadre had challenged the order dated 29th January, 1990 by means of which he has been compulsorily retired by the State Government in exercise "of powers under Fundamental Rules 56 (C). It has been challenged on the ground that the same was not in public interest and was arbitrary, penal and is an abuse of power as he was not a dead-wood but has continuously shown improvement in his work, which is apparent from his service record. Tbe State has defended its action in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit and as directed, has produced the record.

(2.) THE petitioner started his carrier in 1957 as Naib Tahsildar from which post he was promoted as Tahsildar in 1962 and thereafter as Deputy Collector in September 1971 (P. C. S.) to which approval was given by the Public Civil Services Commission in 1987against the vacancy of 1974, but according to the State against the vacancy of 1975. He crossed his efficiency bar (E.B.) in P. C. S. ordinary grade in 1978. THEreafter the petitioner crossed the Efficiency Bar automatically due to various pay revisions. THE petitioner has stated that but for one adverse entry in 1968, which was expunged, he has not earned any adverse entry as none was communicated to him. In respect of some matter of the year 1982, a charge sheet was issued to him and after submission of reply, enquiry was held and report was submitted but no decision on it was taken and even though he was awarded Rs. 1000/- as honorarium for his excellent work in 1986-87 when he was posted in Secretariat, yet suddenly he was retired at the age of 56 years by the impugned order.

(3.) FROM the facts stated above, it is clear that because of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in departmental enquiry decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily was taken. This being an admitted fact in the counter affidavit, it is not necessary to -call for the Secretariat files. There being no adverse entry in the service record, the order of compulsory retire- ment was in the nature of penalty though innocuously worded and the same has not been passed in public interest, but may tantamount to be removal from service, before attaining the age of superannuation within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Even if it be accepted that the Government instead of taking the drastic step of removal from service and thus depriving him of pensionary benefits has taken a lenient view and has only cut short his service period by two years by retiring him, yet the order of compulsory retirement will tantamount to be a punishment and in total disregard and contravention of the procedure prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution.