PARSHOTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has questioned the Government Order No. 9903-GAD of 2006 dated 14th of August' 2005, whereby he came to be prematurely retired from service with effect from 14th of August' 2005, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) It is contended in the petition that the petitioner came to be appointed as Patwari in the Revenue Department on 18th of August' 1980. He worked to the best satisfaction of his superiors and earned best and excellent APRs, came to be promoted as Girdawar on 2nd of April' 2005 on the basis of service record including the APRs. He discharged his duties as Girdawar to the best satisfaction of his superiors and no complaint was made against him. He is having an unblemished service career. It is further contended that he hails from a very small village and due to jealousy a conspiracy came to be hatched against him, but he never cared and un-detterdly performed his duties consciously, efficiently and fairly without fear and favour. He remained as Tehsil President as well as District President of Patwar Association. A strike was called in the month of August for three consecutive days i.e., 10th, 11th and 12th of August' 2006, which became the bone of dispute and the superiors in order to punish him passed the impugned order. The impugned order came to be passed without considering the service record and the fact that he was promoted as Girdawar in the year 2005. Virtually the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily, without any evidence/application of mind and is the outcome of malice.

(3.) Respondents have filed the counter and resisted the petition on the grounds detailed therein. It is averred that the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of reports received from concerned departments and various agencies as well as the opinion from the public in general and in the public interest. It is also averred that petitioner has indulged in corrupt practices at different stages of his service career and the material considered by the Committee would demonstrate that the premature retirement of petitioner does not suffer from the varies of law rather has been passed on the basis of information received from a cross section of public about the general reputation of the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the Committee while recommending the premature retirement of officers-officials including the petitioner, has taken note of various facts and the inputs/material provided by the Vigilance Organization and Additional Director General, CID about the reputation of such officers among the public.