SHIV KANT TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Petitioner Shiv Kant Tripathi a Judicial Of ficer in the State of UP. working on the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was compulsorily retired in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (in short "f. R.-56") vide order dated 17th May, 2005. Aggrieved thereto, he has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him on his original post and not to interfere with his functioning as Additional Civil Judge (S. D ).

(2.) THE facts in brief as stated in the writ petition giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Munsif [now designated as Civil Judge (Junior Division)] in the year 1978. While posted as Judicial Magistrate, Unnao an adverse remark was recorded in his Annual Character Roll (hereinafter referred to as "a. C. R. ") for the year T994-95 by the then District Judge, Unnao and he also recommended for departmental inquiry against him wherein ultimately, he was exonerated as communicated by letter dated 15th April, 2005. In the meantime, various annual confidential remarks were given by the concerned Dis trict Judge (s) referring to pendency of the said inquiry and his integrity was either withheld or otherwise made subject to the said inquiry which ultimately, resulted in exoneration. It is said that there was no adverse material otherwise existing in his service record, despite thereto, the Screening Committee constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice recommended his name for compulsory retirement. THE said recommendation was accepted by the Full Court on 30th April, 2005. Recom mendation was made to the Governor by this Court's letter dated 2nd May, 2005 pursuant where to, the impugned order dated 27th May, 2005 was issued compulsorily retiring the petitioner.

(3.) THE aforesaid entry was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30th April, 1996 where against he represented on 4th June, 1996 which was con sidered and rejected by this Court vide order dated 3rd September, 1996. With respect to the complaint received against the petitioner involving his integrity, a vigilance enquiry was directed and on the basis of report submitted by the Officer on Special Duty, Enquiries, (Vigilance), the administrative committee vide dated 18th September, 1994 decided to hold a regular enquiry against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was issued and the District Judge, Lucknow was ap pointed Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 3rd February, 2005 exonerating petitioner which was accepted by the administrative committee in its meeting dated 6th April, 2005 and it resolved not to take any further action in the matter.