JUDGMENT
V.M. Sahai, J,
1. A short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether an employee can be compulsorily retired by the screening committee itself without there being an order passed by the appointment authority compulsorily retiring him.
2. The petitioner was appointed as copyist in Collectorate, Kanpur on 17.3.1962 on Class III post. He was promoted as Wasil Waki Navis in 1989. By order dated 21.12.1994 the petitioner has been compulsorily retired by the screening committee.
3. Shri A. K. Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in view of the Government Order dated 26.10.1985 Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner could be compulsorily retired by the appointment authority in public interest either by three months” notice or by paying three months’ salary. No such notice or pay was given to the petitioner by the respondents. The other argument of Shri Singh was that after an order was passed by the screening committee, the appointing authority was required to pass an order retiring the petitioner. He urged that merely because the appointment authority was in the screening committee, it would not mean that the order of compulsory retirement was passed by him. The learned counsel submitted that the order was contrary to Government Order dated 26.10.1985, as the report of the screening committee was required to be considered by the appointing
authority. Shri Gautam Chatterjee standing counsel has supported the impugned order on the ground that even if the appointing authority has not passed any separate order compulsorily retiring the petitioner, since he was a member of screening committee, the order passed by the screening committee is just and proper and no separate order was required to be passed by the appointment authority.
4. The Government has got every right to consider, on the basis of records, as to whether a person should be compulsorily retired or not and for this purpose the Government has issued G.O dated 26.10.1985 which laid down the procedure to be followed by the screening committee. This Government Order provides that on the post of which the Governor is not the appointing authority, the appointing authority shall be its Chairman and two senior officers will be its members. It further provides that screening committee will not have any legal status and the report of the screening committee shall be considered by the appointing authority and he shall take his own independent decision as to whether an employee should be compulsorily retired or not. The Government Order further provides that the appointing authority can compulsorily retire an employee by giving him three months notice or three months’ pay in lieu thereof. The petitioner has been compulsorily retired by order dated 19.12.1994. The screening committee considered the service records of the petitioner and was of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to be compulsorily retired. The screening committee further went on to compulsorily retire the petitioner w.e.f. 19.12.1994 itself which it had no power or authority to do. Other direction issued by the screening committee that three months salary be paid to the petitioner is also contrary to the Government Order. Since the screening committee had no power to compulsorily retire an employee and the only power vested in it was to send its report to the appointing authority and the ‘appointing authority was required to
apply his own independent mind as to whether the employee should be compulsorily retired or not. Therefore, the compulsory retirement of the petitioner by the screening committee cannot be upheld.
5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 19.12,1994 passed by the screening committee Annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid his arrears of salary within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned respondents.
6. The parties shall bear their
own costs.