LAWS(ALL)-1991-11-29

SYED AMJAD ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On November 20, 1991
SYED AMJAD ALI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Syed Amjad Ali, an A.S.I. (M) in the Uttar Pradesh Police was retired compulsorily by the order dated 19-3-1976, (Annexure 3 to the petition) by the Superintendent of Police, Etah (S.P) respondent no. 4 which is sought to be quashed by the former in this petition. The petitioner was retired compulsorily when he completed the age of 51 years on the ground of his poor performance which was inferred by the respondent no. 4 from the facts : (1) that the petitioner was visited with petty punishments for the years 1951, 1958 and 1959 ; (2) that his character roll entries for the years 1960, 1961, 1969 to 1972 and 1975 were not satisfactory ; (3) that proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act were initiated against him for the years 1969, 1971 and 1972 for having remained absent from duty unauthorisedly ; and (4) that this over all performance was unsatisfactory and showed misconduct.

(2.) BEFORE the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, the petitioner made submissions that all the adverse entries were not communicated to him ; that whatever entries were communicated to him, representations had been made against them by the petitioner but they were not considered and remained undisposed of; that the Tribunal was not right in having relied on such adverse entries ; that whatever adverse entries were there upto October, 1974 they lost the character of adversity and were rendered ineffective, inasmuch as the recommendation made by the S.P. for his compulsory retirement, was disapproved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.) by the order dated 31-10-74 ; and that as the recommendation of the S.P. for retiring the petitioner compulsorily was not accepted by the D.I.G on 31-10-1974, the same material could not have been pressed into service by the S.P. in October, 1975 recommending his compulsory retirement again to the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), who eventually accepted the recommendation giving rise to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 19th March, 1976.

(3.) RAITERATING the view expressed in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40, the Supreme Court held in C. D. Allahabad v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1001, that order of compulsory retirement can be challenged on the grounds :- (1) that requisite opinion has not been formed ; (2) that the decision is bad on collateral grounds ; and (3) that the decision is arbitrary