BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.K.Malviya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 26.12.2006, passed by the Chief Inspector of Government Offices, Uttar Pradesh, Administrative Reforms Department, Allahabad, by which the petitioner was compulsory retired in accordance with Rule 56(C) of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner, in the connected writ petitions, has also challenged the order by which he was granted adverse entries for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 as well as the rejection order on his representation. All these petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided.

(3.) The petitioner contends, that at the relevant moment of time, the petitioner was working under the control and supervision of the Chief Inspector and that he was the State President of the Uttar Pradesh Government Offices Clerical Staff Association and, in his capacity as the State President, had made several complaints against the activities of the higher officers, especially against of the Chief Inspector. Since the petitioner had made a specific complaint against the Chief Inspector, adverse entries were granted malafidely, against which the petitioner made a representation to a higher authority, namely, to the Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department of the Government of U.P. The Principal Secretary, instead of deciding the representation, committed an error in directing the competent authority to decide the representation, on the basis of which, the Chief Inspector illegally and arbitrarily rejected the representation against the adverse entry, on the basis of which the order of compulsory retirement was passed again by the same officer.