KISHORI RAMAN SARSWAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Sri Upendra Nath holding brief on behalf of Sri R.K. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the entire service record has not been considered before passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement and he was also not afforded any opportunity as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by Hon'ble Single Judge, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. However, he could not dispute the fact that there exists three adverse entries in his service record. The other findings recorded by Hon'ble Single Judge regarding his behaviour etc. has also not been disputed by him as a matter of fact.

(2.) IT is well settled law that an order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 is not a punishment attracting Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE whole purpose of the provision made for compulsory retirement is to weed out the worthless without resorting to bona fide extreme process covered under Article 311 of the Constitution. After all the administration to be efficient has to be manned by active and competent prone workers and should not be manned by drones do nothing, incompetent and unworthies. Lack of efficiency by itself does not amount to a misconduct and, therefore, such incumbent may not be delinquent needs to be punished but may prove to be a burden on the administration, if by insensitive, insouciant, unintelligent or dubious conduct impede the floor or promote stagnation. In a developing country where speed, probity, sensitive, enthusiastic, creativity and non-brevity process are immediately required, callous cadres and paperlogged are the bees setting sin of the administration. Sometimes, reputation or otherwise the information available to the superior officers reflects on the integrity of the employee but there may not be sufficient evidence available to initiate punitive action, but simultaneously conduct and reputation of such person is menace for his continuance in public service is injurious to public interest. In all such cases order of compulsory retirement may be passed by the competent authority.