OM PRAKASH PAWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.3.93 (Annexure-14) passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. The impugned order has been made by respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 56(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules and the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order and also for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat him in service and to pay him salary and other emoluments with arrears, and continue to pay the same and not interfere in his working. Undisputedly the relief in the nature of mandamus to treat the petitioner in service and not to interfere in his working has become lnfructuous inasmuch as the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts as alleged in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Field Assistant, Sugar Cane Research Station, Shahjahanpur in the year 1960. According to him he was confirmed by the order dated 28.4.78 and was granted selection grade w.e.f. 28.11.1981. During the entire career of his service he earned only a few adverse remarks which all were recorded by Sri B.K. Tyagi, District Agriculture Project Officer, Muzaffarnagar. The adverse remarks recorded in the year 1981-82 and in the year 1982-83, on representations made by the petitioner were expunged by the order dated 4.12.87 passed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Muzaffarnagar. Thereafter he was given good entries and in the year 1988-89 Sri Tyagi again recorded adverse remarks against which petitioner made a representation on 10.11.89 and the same was pending when the impugned decision was taken. Another adverse entry was made in the Character Roll of the petitioner in the year 1989-90 and against this entry also the petitioner made a representation which was still undecided when the decision in question was taken.

(3.) The impugned order dated 31.3.93 retiring the petitioner compulsorily has been challenged on the grounds that the petitioner was given no opportunity of hearing either by the Selection Committee or the respondent No. 2 before taking the ultimate decision. It is further claimed that the Screening Committee did not consider the fact that the entries for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 had already been expunged and against the adverse remarks for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 the representations of the petitioner were pending decision. The respondent No. 2 also without applying his mind, just on the basis of the report of the Screening Committee has passed the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, which is arbitrary and illegal.