RADHEY SHYAM TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. K. Kalia, Se nior Advocate and Sri 1. P. Singh for the respondent Jal Nigam.

(2.) THE petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the U. P. Jal Nigam, has been compulsorily retired, vide order dated 2. 9. 2005, by the appointing authority in exercise of his powers under Fundamental Rule 56 (C ).

(3.) IT may be pertinent to mention here that the criteria, which was adopted by the Screening Committee was to see the entire record of the service with more weightage to the recent ten year's record and that the following criteria was adopted for determining the worth of the officers for being retained or being ousted from service: (i) marks were allocated to Annual Character Roll remarks, category-wise and in case the officer belongs to general category could not or did not acquire a minimum number of marks (9) on the basis of his Character Roll entries, he was liable to be retired compulsorily, which, in the case of an officer of Reserved category were only 6 marks; (ii) in case the officer had been awarded a punishment of recovery or he had deposited any amount towards recovery, as a result of some fault com mitted by him during his service period, it would constitute a ground for com pulsory retirement.