1
Court No.4
Writ Petition No. 499(S/B) of 2006
Anand Kishore Jaiswal Petitioner
Vs.
The State of U.P. and others Opposite parties
----------
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon’ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner, who was
working as Sub Registrar in the Department of Tax and Registration,
has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2005 awarding the
adverse/censor entry to the petitioner as well as order of reversion
placing him in the lowest of the pay scale and the order dated
16.9.2005 by which he has been compulsorily retired from the service.
The Court had summoned the records including the proceedings
of the Screening Committee.
Learned Standing Counsel has produced the records including the
report of Screening Committee dated 25.7.2005. The report also
considers the case of Sri Anand Kishore Jaiswal , the petitioner in this
writ petition.
The Screening Committee found that in the year 1994-95, the
petitioner’s integrity was not certified; prior to that, in the years 1984-85
also his integrity was also not certified; apart from this, during the last
three years, petitioner was punished on three occasions and by order
dated 28.6.2005 he was reverted in the original of the pay scale. The
2
Screening Committee also found that there was hardly any possibility
of improvement in him in the future.
The petitioner has not denied the fact that in the years 1984-85
and 1994-95 his integrity was not certified. The documents produced
by him, were supplied to him on his requisition under Right to
Information Act . The annual entry of the petitioner for the year 2001-
02, was also recorded as bad.
The perusal of the record shows though the order dated 25.6.2005
by which petitioner was awarded punishment has been challenged in
this writ petition, he has not challenged the separate order of the same
date by which his one increment for a period of one year was directed
to be withheld .
The Inspector General of Registration U.P., in the departmental
inquiry in which the petitioner admitted charges nos. 8 and 9, punished
him with reversion to the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 6500/-. He
was also awarded a special adverse entry, to the effect that he was found
negligent in keeping the registers updated without thumb impressions;
negligent in returning the registered documents without signing on the
receipts and withholding the documents illegally . He also found guilty
to allowing outsiders to do the government work; delay in disposing of
the copying fee and making overwriting in the minutes book.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Screening Committee travelled beyond the material produced before
it, and checked the entries beyond the relevant period for considering
the records. The order dated 20.6.2005 was not communicated to him.
He was not given sufficient time to file an appeal. He further submits
3
that both the orders dated 20.6.2005 as contained in annexure nos. 1,
to the writ petition and annexure -12 to the counter affidavit are liable to
be set aside.
The Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Writ Petition No. 64222 of 2005 ,Ram Briksha Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
decided on 4.7.2006. In that case Sri Ram Briksha Prasad was also
serving as Sub Registrar and and his records was also considered in the
same meeting held on 25.7.2005, but he was allowed to continue in
the service.
It is not denied by the petitioner that his integrity was not
certified in the years 1984-85 and 1994-95 and the he was punished
three times in the three preceding years. The Screening Committee
relied upon the order dated 20.6.2005 by which the petitioner was
reverted to the original pay scale. The petitioner has not challenged the
order dated 20.6.2005 reverting him to original pay scale in this writ
petition. The screening Committee had sufficient material against the
petitioner to form its opinion. Even otherwise, sufficiency or
insufficiency of the adverse material cannot be a ground to challenge
the decision of the competent authority for compulsorily retirement.
The argument that the petitioner did not have sufficient
opportunity to file appeal against the order dated 20.6.2005, is also
devoid of force as the order dated 20.6.2005 was duly served upon
him. He neither mentioned it in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder
affidavit.
The judgment in Ram Briksha Prasad case (Supra) is based upon
the different facts . Sri Ram Briksha Prasad has filed an appeal which
4
was pending on the date when the screening Committee has considered
the matter of compulsory retirement and his representation was not
considered by the Screening Committee .
We further find that the endorsement of receipt made by the
petitioner as both the orders 20.6.2009 as contained as annexure 1, to
the writ petition as well as annexure 11 to the counter affidavit show
that the orders were duly received by the petitioner on 28.6.2005. The
petitioner cannot therefore deny the facts alleged in the writ petition that
the order was not communicated to him by the date when the Screening
Committee considered his case for compulsory retirement.
The reliance upon Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual
Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules 1995 by the petitioner
is of no assistance to the petitioner as the petitioner has participated in
the previous inquiry and that he was given minor punishment by the
orders. Rule 5 of the Rules 1995 is not applicable, to the matter under
Rule 56 (c ) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in Volume II part
2 to 4 of the U.P. Financial Hand Book under which the decision of the
compulsory retirement is taken.
We do not find any good ground to interfere in the writ petition as
sufficient material was available before the Screening Committee to
form an opinion and to be relied upon by the competent authority that
the petitioner was no longer useful in the service and the he was
required to be retired in public interest . We are also not inclined to
interfere with the order dated 20.6.2005 (Annexure-1 to the writ
petition) on the ground that on the same date another order was passed,
5
punishing him to be reverted to the original pay scale . Petitioner had
received both the order but did not choose to challenge the order dated
20.6.2005 by which he was reverted to the original pay scale in this writ
petition. Even if the order dated 20.6.2005 withholding his one
increment for a period of one year (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ) is
set aside the decision of compulsory retirement will not be affected.
The writ petition lacks merit and the is dismissed.
21.1.2010
D.K.