THAKUR PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against order of compulsory retirement of petitioner, who was Sugar Cane Supervisor. Notice of compulsory retirement was given on 14.09.2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), which was under Fundamental Rule 56 (C) of Financial Hand-Book, Vol.2, Part II to IV. The notice was given by Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur. It was mentioned in the said notice that petitioner would stand retired after expiry of three months from the receipt of notice. Thereafter, order of compulsory retirement was passed on 17.12.2005, which has also been challenged through the amendment application, which has been allowed. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that Cane Commissioner directed screening of the employees for the purpose of compulsory retirement (Para-6 of the counter affidavit). It has further been stated that meeting of Screening Committee was held on 14.09.2005, which consisted of Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur, District Cane Officers of Maharajganj and Gorakhpur and the Committee decided to compulsory retire three employees (including the petitioner), who had got three or more adverse entries or had been suspended or faced departmental proceedings and had been punished thereafter. In Para-5 of the counter affidavit, details of adverse entries/orders against the petitioner have been given, which are as follows: (I) District Cane Officer, Basti suspended the petitioner on 04.08.1984 and through order dated 19.12.1985 directed recovery of Rs.25,108.60/- from the petitioner. (II) Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur through order dated 18.01.1989 suspended the petitioner and through order dated 31.05.1990 awarded following punishments: (i) No further amount apart from suspension allowance should be paid for the suspension period. (ii) Stoppage of one increment. (iii) Adverse entry in the service record to the effect that during 1988-1989, found involved in fictitious sarvey-satta. (III) Petitioner was suspended on 29.05.1997 by order of Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur and awarded following punishments through order dated 18.09.1997: (i) For the suspension period, no further amount apart from suspension allowance should be paid. (ii) Stoppage of three increments. (iii) Adverse entry in the service book to the effect that for the year 1996-1997 prepared satta in the name of farmers against the departmental rules and directions and defamed the department in this manner and in case he repeats the same thing in future, his services would be terminated. (IV) Petitioner was awarded adverse entry for the year 1996-1997 to the effect that habituated to act against the rules and directions and according to his own whims and fancies. (V) Departmental proceedings were initiated through order of Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur dated 08.01.2001, when petitioner was working under village Panchyat and reports against him had been received and after enquiry on 27.07.2002, following adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner: (i) For the year 2000-2001 found guilty of illegally withdrawing Rs.14,400/- from bank account of Gram Panchayat and depositing the said amount subsequently on three different dates and in this manner guilty of temporary embezzlement. (VI) While posted under Gram Panchayat, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and on the basis of the same Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur, through order dated 04.12.2001, suspended the petitioner and after enquiry through order dated 19.06.2003 awarded following punishments: (i) For the suspension period, no further amount apart from suspension allowance would be paid to the petitioner. (ii) Stoppage of one increment. (iii) Awarded adverse entry in the service book to the following effect: "In the year 2001-2002, found guilty of unduly benefiting the undeserving persons in the matter of Indira Awas Yojna and ration cards." In view of the above proceedings, adverse orders passed against the petitioner and adverse entries granted to him, order of compulsory retirement is fully justified. Actually, on the earlier occasions, when petitioner was found guilty of the charges mentioned above, his services should have been terminated. In any case, there is absolutely no error in the order of compulsory retirement. Fundamental Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book has been substituted in U.P. through U.P. Act No.33 of 1976. By virtue of F.R. 56(C) any Government Employee after attaining the age of 50 years may be required to retire without assigning any reason. Under explanation I to F.R. 56 it is provided that decision to compulsory retire shall be taken in the public interest but it is not necessary to recite in the order the said fact. Under explanation 2 to F.R.56 it is provided that decision to compulsory retire shall be taken after taking into consideration any material relating to the Government servant concerned including entries relating to any period before the employee concerned was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or promoted or any entry against which representation is pending provided that representation is also taken into consideration. Compulsorily retirement is part of doctrine of pleasure provided under Article 310 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in different authorities has considered this aspect of compulsorily retirement. In the authority of "Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada" AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1020 it was held that scope of judicial review of orders of compulsory retirement is quite limited and it is not to be treated as punishment order. The principles governing compulsory retirement were again reiterated in AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1137 "State of U. P. v. Lalsa Ram" which was a case from U.P. involving interpretation of U.P. Fundamental Rule 56. In the said case order of compulsory retirement was passed in the year 1988, however, adverse entries right from 1967-68 were taken into consideration. Even though in the said case in the preceding 5 years there was no adverse entry still order of compulsory retirement was upheld. To the same effect is the authority of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. Vs. V.K. Jain, AIR 2002 SC 1345. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.