M P CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the State Government dated October 19, 1973, retiring the petitioner prematurely by giving him three months' salary in lieu of period of notice under Note I to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulation. The petitioner joined service of the State Government as Deputy Jailor in 1944, In 1958 he was promoted to the post of Jailor, later on he was confirmed on that post in 1967. A Departmental Selection Committee constituted by the Public Service Commission selected the petitioner for promotion on ad hoc basis for officiating on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail. In 1971 the petitioner was selected for temporary and officiating appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail. For sometime from August 6, 1971 to September 6, 1972, the petitioner officiated as Superintendent of Central Jail. While the petitioner was posted as officiating Superintendent of the District Jail, Bareilly, the State Government issued the order dated October 19, 1973, retiring him prematurely under Note I to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the State Government issued the impugned order arbitrarily without taking into consideration the relevant matters pertaining to the petitioner's service. His service record had all along been efficient and he earned no adverse entries after 1968 even then the State Government retired the petitioner compulsorily.

(3.) HE was warned for utterly failing in performing his normal duties. In 1967, he was again awarded an adverse entry for delaying the pension papers of employees of the District Jail, Gonda. Again in the year 1967 he was awarded another censure entry for failure to comply with paragraph 20 of the Jail Manual and a Circular letter as he did not call the Jail Doctor to attend 'to an under trial prisoner who had 28 injuries and who died within 2-112 hours of his admission in the jail. In 1968 the petitioner was again awarded two censure entries. In addition to these adverse and censure entries the petitioner was found to be an average officer in 1962-63 and an officer of average ability. In 1964-65 he was awarded the following entry; ''An officer of average ability. Reported to be easy-going. Should be able to do much better if he takes greater interest in his work. In 1967-68 he was again reported to be an average worker. It was or. the basis of this material that the Screening Committee as well as the State Government formed the opinion that the petitioner's retention in service was not in public interest. The material on record was sufficient for the formation of the requisite opinion. The decision of the State Government cannot be characterised arbitrary or capricious. It was then urged that the petitioner earned no adverse entries after 1968 which indicated that he had improved his work and conduct. The State Government misdirected itself in placing reliance on the earlier entries instead of considering the petitioner's performance in service in recent years. There is no dispute that the petitioner's work and conduct was satisfactory after 1968 and he was awarded to no adverse entries after 1968, but the fact remains that the petitioner had earned adverse entries and he had been censured for more than once, the details of which have been noted earlier. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion formed by the State Government either on the adequacy or inadequacy of the material or on the question that the State Government should have given more weight to the entries of recent years. A similar contention was repelled by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. v. S. M. Banerji 1974 A.L.J. 239. The State Government while considering the question of petitioner's retention in service was entitled to take into account the adverse entries awarded against the petitioner even prior to 1968.