SURYA BUX SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin in Tahsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki in year 1973 on seasonal basis. The work and conduct of the petitioner was up to the mark, hence he was appointed on ad hoc basis with effect from 3.3.1984 against the substantive vacancy. When the petitioner was posted in Maswaria Circle, he could not achieve target of realization on account of flood in the area. On account of less recovery in the area the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.4.1984 and an enquiry was set up against him. However, subsequently the petitioner was reinstated with full salary but two minor punishments, one for stoppage of annual increment and the other awarding censure entry was made in his service record. The petitioner preferred representation agaisnt the aforesaid punishment orders but he did not receive any communication as to what happened in his representation. The petitioner was again placed under suspension by the order dated 17.3.1988, in which again charge of less realization of revenue was levelled against him. The petitioner was again reinstated with full salary on 31.3.1989 with stoppage of annual increment and adverse entry. The petitioner again preferred a representation upon which the punishment order was modified and the stoppage of annual increment was revoked. The petitioner then filed a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal with regard to remaining part of punishment order. His claim was allowed by the Tribunal on 27.2.1993 setting aside the order of punishment and subsequently the adverse entry was also expunged and he was directed to be paid full salary of the suspension period. When the petitioner was posted in Lalpur Karauta Circle in the year 1992 the petitioner was again suspended on the same charge. He was again reinstated on 15.1.1994 and his salary was with -held and adverse entry was also made in his service record. He again preferred a representation but no order was communicated to him as to what was the fate of his representation. The petitioner again filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which is still pending. The petitioner soon -after his reinstatement in the year 1994 was again suspended in respect of the same charge of less realization.The petitioner was reinstated on 11.7.1995 and the punishment of stoppage of two increments along with the annual increment was awarded to him. His salary during the suspension period was also with held. The petitioner preferred a representation against the aforesaid order of punishment, which is still pending as no order was communicated to him. The petitioner again preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and the same is also pending.

(3.) THE submission on behalf of the petitioner is that every time when the petitioner was placed under suspension and was awarded punishment, he was reinstated and on some occasions the punishment of with -holding increment was also revoked while against some of the punishment orders, representations and claim petitions were pending when the order of compulsory retirement was passed and therefore these entries said to be adverse against him, should not have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Before the order of compulsory retirement was passed, the disciplinary proceedings pending agaisnt the petitioner were also withdrawn. The opposite party no.4 did not take into consideration the fact that the disciplinary proceedings pending agaisnt the petitioner were withdrawn, and as such, on this ground also the order of compulsory retirement should not have been passed.