SIDHESWAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ranjeet Saxena for the respondent Corporation.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order of compulsory retirement dated 3-8-2005.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation shows that the Appointing Authority has to take into consideration any material relating to the efficiency and suitability of the incumbent including any report of vigilance or any other enquiry report to decide whether it is necessary to compulsorily retire the incumbent. There are only two material disclosed in the counter- affidavit. One is that miscellaneous advance amounting to Rs. 5,35,173/- was neither deposited by the petitioner nor accounted for. The other is an alleged bad entry for the year 1998-99.