CHANDRA DEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police has challenged his compulsory retirement order dated 7-11-1975 passed under Fundamental Rule 55 (c) of the U. P. Fundamental Rules.

(2.) The decision to retire an officer compulsorily in public interest is an objective decision. Apart from taking into account other factors for reaching the decision, the authority concerned necessarily takes into account the character roll entries of the officer, as in the present case. In para 3 (c) of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner had adverse entries in the years 1958-59, 1963-64, 1972-73. ,1973-74 and 1974-75, and the Screening Committee had looked into these entries and came to the conclusion that it was not in public interest to retain the petitioner in. service. This Court does not sit in appeal over a decision of compulsory retirement. However, in case the decision inter alia is one that is arbitrary, or a conclusion has been reached which no reasonable man, could in the circumstances, have reached, or is based on no material, the decision can be interfered under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Further, if it is found that the decision to compulsorily retire an officer has been taken ignoring relevant material or representations made against adverse entries, then too the decision is amenable to a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This is so because the decision being objective in nature, the authorities concerned have to take into account representations made against character roll entries before coming to a final conclusion. The order would also bear the stamp of arbitrariness in case certain entries have been taken into account which have no relevance to the question of public interest i. e. interest of the administrative service in which the officer concerned is serving. The decision to compulsorily retire the petitioners has been taken on the basis of certain alleged adverse entries made against him. These entries have been set out in Annexure "1" to the counter-affidavit and may be extracted :

(3.) So far as- entries of 1958 is concerned. that is hardly of any relevance for deciding as to whether the officer should be retired, for in the first place, the mere fact that he was not successful in investigating dead cases, cannot possibly have any relevance to his efficiency as tin officer. It was to say the least expecting him to achieve the impossible, for on the language of the entry itself, the cases were "dead cases." As regards the other part of entry the remark is that the investigation was 'mediocre.' The word 'mediocre' is of neutral significance, and does not connote any remissness of duty. The entry of 1963-64 is in no way deprecatory for it states that he did his best. As regards proving his worth as a Gazetted Officer, that runs counter to the earlier part of the entry which says that he did his best. Now, if an officer on being appointed to a Gazetted post discharges his duty to the best of his ability, the conclusion that the officer has still to prove his worth as a Gazetted Officer, appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary: So far as entry for 1972-73 is concerned, it lauds the hard work put in by the officer. The only defect pointed out is that he was not able to provide effective guidance and extract satisfactory work from his subordinate officers. Whether an officer can extract satisfactory work from his subordinate officers depends on the quality of the officers posted under him. It was not urged that the petitioner had choice over the officers posted under him, As regards his failure to provide effective guidance, that is hardly of any relevance in determining ag to whether the officer should be retired, when the officer concerned is a hard working officer; The entry of 1973 is to say the least, is commendatory. It states, that the petitioner is an experienced officer, who knew his job. The latter part of the entry again mentions that the petitioner was an experienced officer. The only cloud cast is that he is capable of much better work, but this alone cannot provide a relevant ground for retirement. The entry of 1974-75 is unfavourable.