(1.) By way of present writ petition petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 30.1.1995 passed by the respondent No.2 under Rule 56, Part 'C' of Fundamental Rules of Chapter II, Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in the public interest.
(2.) According to the petitioner his date of birth is 25.7.1943 as entered in the service book and he was to retire on 25.7.2001 and while working as a Reserve Jail Warder in the Jail department he was compulsorily retired on 30.1.1995, whereas to his best knowledge no adverse remarks or entries in preceding five years were recorded in his past service record and work and conduct of the petitioner was statisactory to the best of his knowledge. According to the petitioner when he was posted in the year 1989-90 as a Jail Warder under Sri J.B. Pandey, the Superintendent of District Jail, Varanasi an incident took place on 18.10.1989, where some anti-social elements opened fire on one Sri Bihari Ram, Jailer, as a result he sustained injuries, in retaliation the petitioner also opened fire to protect the life of the Jailer. However, the petitioner was suspended on 25.10.1989 on the recommendation of Sri J.B. Pandey, who too was also appointed Inquiry Officer, whereas, the petitioner had made specific complaint against Sri J.B. Pandey that he has no faith in him in respect of holding fair inquiry by him and, therefore, in his place Sri V.K.Srivastava, Superintendent of District Jail, Jaunpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer. In reference to such episode the petitioner was recommended adverse remarks and against which a representation was pending consideration before the Inspector General of Police. According to the petitioner such adverse entry can not be taken into consideration before passing the order of compulsory retirement. According to the petitioner except in the year 1990 there is no adverse entry in the year 1991, 1992,1993,1994. According to the petitioner Sri J.B. Pandey, Superintendent of Central Jail, Varanasi was one of the members of Screening Committee along with three others and the impugned order of compulsory retirement penal in nature was passed malafidely, passed without affording opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioner and the adverse entry against which the petitioner's representation is pending can not be taken into account. During the course of argument it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement is a stigmatic and which meets civil consequences of the petitioner as the same was in derogation to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and was passed only by considering irrelevant records and is against the principle of natural justice. According to the petitioner the records of 10 years were not to be taken into consideration! According to the petitioner out of 86 persons including the petitioner screened out for the purpose of compulsory retirement, large number of persons whose performance, work and conduct was inferior to the petitioner and not upto the mark, whereas the petitioner along with then others has been signalled, thereby the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution is infringed. According to the petitioner the adverse remarks besides the year 1990, if exist but not communicated can not be taken into consideration. The said order of the compulsory retirement has been passed by a non-speaking order without assigning any reason.
(3.) According to the petitioner one Sri Bharat Singh, shown at serial No. 61 of the persons in the list were considered by the Screening Committee on 30.1.1995, had filed the writ petition against the order of his compulsory retirement where this Court on 22.8.1995 had set aside the order of his compulsory retirement observing that there was no adverse entry from 1990 to 1995 recorded in the character roll of Sri Bharat Singh and the compulsory retirement in his case was not supported by any reason, without application of mind in a mechanical manner.