BHAGWAN LAL BAREDIA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, it is finally heard.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 18/4/2006 (Annexure-P/11) passed by respondent No.1 whereby on the basis of recommendations made by Screening Committee, the petitioner was directed to be retired from service compulsorily.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Screening Committee did not take note of the criteria as has been laid down for compulsory retiring an employee in a proper manner. He submits that even otherwise, the gradings awarded to the petitioner in his ACRs for the years 2000 to 2005 cannot be considered to be the gradings under which an employee is considered to be a dead-wood or allowing him in service shall be treated to be against public interest. He further submits that the Screening Committee while passing the order did not take into consideration the petitioner's ACR for the year 2005 in which he was awarded grading 'Very Good' ('A'). He also submits that the order of Screening Committee was based upon wrong premise because while passing the order, the Committee took note of the punishment which was earlier awarded to the petitioner, whereas the said punishment got set aside later on. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in (1998) 4 SCC 92 [State of Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh].