LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-165

DAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 08, 2003
DAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.11.1994 retiring him compulsorily with immediate effect under the provisions of Financial Handbook Vol. II, (Parts II to IV), Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c).

(2.) IT is contended for the petitioner that his service record has been unblemished throughout, no adverse entry was ever awarded to him, has not been taken notice of by the Screening Committee, the petitioner is physically fit with good health ; there was no material before the Review Committee to form opinion to recommend compulsory retirement ; the Review Committee picked up the petitioner and arbitrarily recommended for premature retirement in order to comply the mandate of the Chief Engineer (Establishment) P.W.D., U. P., Lucknow contained in his letter dated 10.12.1993 ; the opinion of the Review Committee that the petitioner is physically unfit is wholly without basis as no medical opinion was sought from the C.M.O. or the Medical Board ; petitioner's date of retirement according to his date of birth recorded in his service book is 31.3.2003 and he is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits ; the order impugned is violative of principle of audi alteram partem as contemplated under Rule 56D of Fundamental Rules ; the order impugned is wholly illegal, unjustified and suffer from vice of arbitrariness.

(3.) THE order of premature retirement is passed on subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority and the principles of natural justice have no application in this context. Judicial review of such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible only on limited grounds of mala fide or in the absence of any evidence of material the necessary opinion could be formed or arbitrariness in the sense that there is no reasonable person could form the requisite opinion. In the present case, as stated above, there is no material at all before the Review Committee to form its opinion to retire the petitioner prematurely.