VIRENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. C. Verma, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retire ment dated 16-12-1993 passed by the Dis trict Judge, Ghazipur on the ground that the same is arbitrary and has been passed on consideration of adverse entires which were neither communicated nor any opportunity was given to submit the explanation as also the impugned order has been passed byway of punishment without affording any oppor tunity.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially ap pointed as Apprentice in the Civil Court and was working in the Copying Depart ment. THE petitioner has alleged that while working on the promoted post of Assistant Record Keeper in the year 1993 he was promoted to the post of Munsarim by order dated 31-7-1993 by the District Judge Ghazipur after adjudging his merit and suitability. THE respondents have con sidered the adverse entries prior to 1993 on the basis of which the impugned action has been taken whereas the adverse entries passed prior to July, 1993 were liable to be ignored as they stood condoned and washed out in view of the promotion given to the petitioner. THE petitioner has also alleged that after 1993 he did not receive any ad verse entry and there was no adverse entry or adverse remark on account of which the impugned action could be taken. THE petitioner while he was posted as Amin in Civil Court Saidupur, Ghazipur, he was charged for having changed his report. A preliminary enquiry was held by the Second Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur who sub mitted report in his favour. THE com plainant requested for re-enquiry into the matter and the District Judge ordered for re-enquiry through Sri U. C. Tiwari, Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur. THE report was submitted on 30-6-1992 against the petitioner for having committed negligence in performance of duties. A fulfledged en quiry there after was directed to be made and Sri Rajdeo, Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, was appointed as Enquiring Officer. THE petitioner submitted his reply dated 10-11-1989 against the charges levelled against him. Sri Rajdeo, the En quiry Officer by letter dated 5-12-1992 re quested for transfer of the enquiry to some other Officer as he had submitted his preliminary enquiry report. THE matter was then transferred to I Addl. District and Ses sions Judge and the enquiry is still pending. On the last date of the enquiry proceedings which was held on 3-1-1994, the next date was fixed as 17-1-1994 and there after on the application of the petitioner the enquiry was adjourned. In another case, on a com plaint by one Damodar Prasad, it has been alleged that some change in the com promise deed filed in Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1988 has been made. At the time when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Record Keeperand was made by the Administra tive Officer who submitted the enquiry report dated 19-5-1993 in which it was indi cated that it was the responsibility of one Laxmi Prasad and not of the petitioner. However, the District Judge, Ghazipur ap pointed Sri U. C. Tiwari, Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur, to enquire into the matter and 28-1-1994 has been fixed for hearing. In the meantime Screening Committee was constituted to consider the cases of the employees for submission of the report. On the basis of the report of the Screening Committee, the District Judge, by the im pugned order dated 16-12-1993 passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE Screening Committee on con sideration of the above adverse entries recommended for the compulsory retire ment of the petitioner in public interest. THE District Judge Ghazipur, on considera tion of report of the Screening Committee as also the relevant record passed the im pugned order. THE respondents have taken the stand that the impugned order is neither by way of punishment nor the same is ar bitrary or based on irrelevant consideration.