Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 April, 2020
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD In Chamber Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12429 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57883 of 2013 Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri B.C.Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyam Singh learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.
By means of the writ petition no. 12429 of 2018, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the order of compulsory retirement dated 26.4.2018 passed by the Director General (Prison), namely the respondent no.2 herein. Simultaneously, he seeks for quashing of the resolution of the Screening Committee dated 24.4.2018 as also the punishment order dated 22.2.2018. He further seeks for quashing of the Office memorandum dated 20.4.2017 and the charge sheet dated 3.5.2017 served upon him in the departmental enquiry. Another Office memorandum dated 7.12.2017 is also subject matter of challenge in the present petition and in Writ Petition no. 57883 of 2013, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the suspension order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as recommendation order dated 2.10.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 therein.
The relevant facts of the matter to decide the controversy at hands are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Deputy Jailor was placed under suspension on 3.10.2013 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry on the allegations of accepting illegal money in lieu of assurance to provide unauthorized services to the prisoners, which came into light in a sting operation conducted by a T.V. Channel, namely News Nation. Challenging the suspension order, the writ petition no.57883 of 2013 was filed before this Court on the ground that the video film telecasted by the private T.V. channel namely ''News Nation' has no evidentiary value being edited version of the original recording. The suspension order based on the said telecast is illegal. It was simultaneously prayed that the respondents be directed to produce relevant records including the original digital versatile disc/compact disc relating to sting operation of the District Jail, Muzaffarnagar and upon production thereof the same may be send for examination in the forensic science laboratory. A counter affidavit was called in the writ petition while staying the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 3.10.2013. The said writ petition, however, is pending adjudication.
A preliminary enquiry was initiated by the Inspector General vide order dated 21.10.2013 to ascertain the truth of the sting operation. A report dated 7.11.2013 was submitted by the Deputy Inspector General, Meerut Zone, noticing that News Channel did not provide original CD of the video film shot by them. It was further opined therein that the compact disc (CD) produced by them was not complete and there was no certification that the copy of CD provided by them was true to the original. It was further opined that the details of persons engaged in recording of the compact disc was not provided nor any technical opinion was sought regarding its authenticity.
On receipt of the said enquiry report, by means of the order dated 8.11.2013, the Inspector General (Prison), U.P had directed for reinstatement of the petitioner into service. However, another order dated 9.12.2013 was passed by the Inspector General (Prison) repatriating the petitioner to the District Jail, Pilibhit while doing away with his attachment in the District Jail, Muzaffarnagar. A regular departmental enquiry was initiated in continuation of the Office memorandum dated 3.10.2013 with the service of the chargesheet dated 5.1.2014 on the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner based on the film telecasted on T.V. channel News Nation. By Office memorandum dated 6.3.2014, the Deputy Inspector General, U.P set aside the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner noticing that no proper fact finding enquiry had been conducted to ascertain the veracity of sting operation. The disciplinary enquiry based on the sting operation could not continue unless a proper fact finding enquiry is conducted. The Additional Inspector General (Prison), U.P was nominated to hold preliminary enquiry regarding the sting operation.
The petitioner appeared before the Additional Inspector General (Prison) and submitted his written statement on 7.4.2014 making a request that the raw footage and edited version of video film be examined through FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory). The petitioner has also prayed for cross examination of the representatives of private News channel who had prepared the video film. The Additional Inspector General (Prison) in his preliminary enquiry report dated 30.7.2014 had observed that the possibility of tampering with the compact disc could be ruled out and, moreover, the telecast of the sting operation after four months of recording of the same created reasonable doubt in the minds of the enquiry officer. It was, therefore, recommended that before taking any action against the petitioner and other employee based on the sting operation, it would be pertinent to ascertain authenticity of the compact disc by seeking a technical report through forensic examination.
On receipt of the said preliminary enquiry report, nothing was done for a long time. Surprisingly, vide office memorandum dated 20.4.2017, the Inspector General (Prison) nominated the Deputy Inspector General Bareilly zone as enquiry officer to conduct a departmental enquiry in terms of the Government employee (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999) for various allegations mentioned therein. A chargesheet dated 3.5.2017 was served upon the petitioner which contained only one charge, i.e. the act of the petitioner in indulging in unnecessary dialogue with the journalists and telecast of the same had tarnished the image of the department. The allegation in the chargesheet is that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of violation of paragraph 1101(A) of Jail Manual as also Rule 3(1) (2) of the U.P Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. The petitioner was called upon to submit a reply to the chargesheet within a period of 15 days.
It is categorically stated in this writ petition that the video film was not sent for forensic examination to the laboratory. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 18.5.2017 to the charge sheet agitating his claim for forensic examination of the video film footage "telecasted by the channel News Nation", through a technical expert. Another communication dated 21.9.2017 was sent to the enquiry officer namely the Deputy Inspector (General) (Prison), Bareilly Region, Bareilly with the prayer to postpone the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 3.10.2013. It was pleaded that the prayer for forensic examination of the video footage made by the petitioner is subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid writ petition and it would not be proper to conduct a departmental enquiry based on the same without its forensic examination or any order passed by this Court. Repeated requests were made by the petitioner to defer the disciplinary enquiry till adjudication of the aforesaid writ petition. Lastly, a written statement dated 13.11.2017 was submitted by the petitioner to the enquiry officer wherein the charge levelled against him was categorically denied. Perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner indicates that he only pleaded for recall or cancellation of the chargesheet in view of the interim order dated 22.10.2013 passed by this Court in writ petition filed against the suspension order dated 3.10.2013.
It appears that the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex-parte for non-participation of the petitioner. The enquiry report dated 27.11.2017 records that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the chargesheet. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner has not furnished any explanation in the writ petition for non-participation in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings which was initiated with the charge sheet dated 7.10.2017 and culminated with submission of the enquiry report vide office memorandum dated 27.11.2017. The communication send by the petitioner seeking deferment of the enquiry proceedings on the ground of the pendency of the writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 3.10.2013 were based on misconceived notion. The said writ petition was filed with two prayers, firstly, for quashing of the suspension order dated 3.10.2013 which has lost its efficacy with its revocation and initiation of the subsequent departmental proceedings. As far as the prayer to direct for forensic examination of the compact disc is concerned, the same could have been taken as a defence before the enquiry officer. Moreover, the charge against the petitioner was of indulging in unnecessary dialogue with the journalists of the channel 'News Nation' and that the conversation telecasted by the channel had tarnished the image of the department. The allegation of tampering with the original video recording, therefore, was of no consequence.
The crux of the matter in the departmental enquiry was to ascertain as to whether act of the petitioner in getting a video film recorded at his official residence in relation to the prisoners of the District Jail, Muzaffarnagar was condemnable, in as much as, the petitioner being Deputy Jailor was not required to indulge in such activity. The enquiry report categorically records that atleast this much is proved that the petitioner had indulged in unnecessary dialogue with the media personnel for which he was not authorised. Had he remained vigilant about the jail regulations, this situation could not have been averted. The vehement challenge made by the petitioner to the enquiry report on the assertion that the Compact disk was tampered and the copy of the original piece recorded by the person connected with a T.V. channel News Nation, was not produced, therefore, is of no consequence. The petitioner has nowhere stated nor submitted in his reply that he did not have any knowledge about the recording of his conversation with the Media professionals or that the same was to be telecasted on the television. As no such defence had been taken before the enquiry officer, averments made in this regard in the present writ petition for the first time cannot be considered.
The challenge to the enquiry report dated 27.11.2017 and the punishment order passed by the competent disciplinary authority after consideration of the same, therefore, cannot be interfered with. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report was faulty and the charge levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet dated 7.10.2017 could not be proved in absence of the forensic examination of the compact disc is based on misconception and deserves to be outrightly rejected being devoid of any force.
Looking to the enquiry report, it is more than evident that the petitioner while being posted as Deputy Jailor in the District Jail, Muzaffarnagar had indulged in a dialogue with media personnel of Television Channel 'News Nation' and the video footage of the said conversation was recorded and telecasted. The said fact when came to the knowledge of the department, the departmental enquiry was held with the specific charge framed of violation of the Code of Conduct laid down in the jail manual as also misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(2) is, thus, found proved.
As far as the plea to vitiate the entire departmental enquiry is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the power of judicial review in such matters is limited to the extent of decision-making process. It is not possible for the Court to substitute its own view with the view taken by the disciplinary authority and arrive at a different conclusion than that has been reached by the competent authority. On the merits of the charge levelled in the departmental enquiry, unless perversity is established, the Court is only required to examine as to whether the disciplinary authority has followed the procedure to conduct the departmental enquiry, i.e whether the principles of natural justice have been violated. Whether due opportunity has been provided to the delinquent before holding him guilty of the charges levelled in the departmental enquiry by providing material relied upon by the enquiry officer and intimation of the date fixed in the departmental enquiry, is within the scope of enquiry in exercise of power of judicial review. In the instant case, no fault in the decision making process has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to vitiate the entire departmental proceeding or the decision of punishment taken by the disciplinary authority after the consideration of the enquiry report.
It is evident from the record that the petitioner had been provided adequate opportunity to submit his reply at each and every stage and participate in the departmental enquiry. Instead of participating, the petitioner had indulged in repeated communications with the enquiry officer making request to defer the enquiry proceedings. No reply, whatsoever, had been submitted to the chargesheet nor the petitioner had appeared before the enquiry officer on any of the dates fixed. Alleged reply submitted by the petitioner is nothing but repetition of his request to defer the departmental enquiry in view of the pendency of the writ petition filed by him challenging the suspension order dated 3.10.2013. In the said scenario, this Court does not find any good ground to set aside or quash the enquiry proceeding or the decision taken by the disciplinary authority on culmination of the departmental enquiry.
Apart from the arguments made above, another submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the departmental enquiry is regarding jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority. It is vehemently argued that the entire departmental enquiry suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the concerned authority, in as much as, the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Director General (Prison), which is a post held by an officer of the I.A.S cadre. Whereas, the disciplinary authority in the instant case, is the Inspector General (Prison) which is an Ex-cadre post created from I.P.S cadre. The Inspector General (Prison) not being an appointing authority to the post of Deputy Jailor (held by the petitioner) could not have exercised the power of disciplinary authority under the statute. The post of Inspector General (Prison) being created by the Government Order dated 12.4.2008 is an ex-cadre post and can not be treated to be the post of the same cadre as that of the Director General (Prison). Moreover, the administrative powers delegated to the Inspector General (Prison) through the Government Order dated 16.4.2008 did not include power to award a major punishment. The punishment order passed by the Inspector General (Prison) in purported exercise of power under the Government Orders dated 12.4.2008, 16.4.2008 and 12.6.2008 , thus, is not capable of execution being devoid of jurisdiction.
Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, pertinent is to note that the post of Inspector General (Prison) has been created by the Government of U.P in order to strengthen the administration and management of the prisons in the State of U.P. The post of Inspector General (Prison) though may be an ex-cadre post but is in the same status as that of the Director General (Prison) which was the appointing authority of the petitioner. With the creation of new administrative post and the management of prison being entrusted to the incumbent holding the said post, it cannot be said that the Inspector General (Prison) was not competent or lacked jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Moreover, this issue has been raised for the first time by means of the amendment brought in the writ petition in the year 2013. No such dispute was raised by the petitioner during the course of departmental enquiry conducted against him nor any such dispute was raised at an earlier point of time, though the departmental enquiry was instituted by the same officer.
It is settled law that challenge to the jurisdiction of an authority has to be made at the very first opportunity before that authority itself and any subsequent plea raised at a later point of time may not be taken in the same spirit by the Court. The Court would be slow in interfering with the decision of the disciplinary authority on the plea of lack of jurisdiction if no such plea had been raised before that authority itself.
Nonetheless in the instant case, this Court is not convinced with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Inspector General (Prison) had no jurisdiction to initiate a departmental enquiry on a careful reading of the Government Order dated 12.4.2008 which has been issued by the State Government to ensure effective management and administration of prisons in the State of U.P. Now, the Court is left with the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement dated 26.4.2018. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compulsory retirement order is an innocuous order. It has been passed without giving mandatory notice of three months and further the entire service record of the last ten years services rendered by the petitioner had not been examined in correct prospective. The compulsory retirement order cannot be said to have been passed either in the interest of service or in public interest. This order in fact had been passed as a punishment to the petitioner on the allegations made in the video footage recorded in the sting operation. The authenticity of the compact disc has not been ascertained by the disciplinary authority before imposing punishment vide order dated 22.2.2018 of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Moreover, an employee cannot be compulsorily retired by way of punishment as a substitute to the departmental enquiry wherein the disciplinary authority has to provide due opportunity. The compulsory retirement order being stigmatic in nature, having been passed as a substitute of punishment order, in the departmental enquiry cannot be sustained.
Placing para 8.1 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire service record of the petitioner is unblemished barring one or two adverse entries. The screening committee did not go through the entire service record rather it was swayed away by the fact that the major punishment (though only once) was awarded to the petitioner. The sting operation or any material relating to the same could not have been made basis to take any adverse view against the petitioner. Moreover, the compulsory retirement of the petitioner cannot be sustained being against the fundamental principles of exercise of power on the part of the competent authority as it cannot be passed as a measure of punishment.
To deal with the above arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be apposite to note the fundamental principles of law which govern the exercise of power by a competent authority to compulsory retire a Government employee. The scope of power conferred on an authority to pass order of compulsorily retirement has been subject matter of various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The principles of law in this regard can be summarized as under:-
The order of compulsory retirement implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. The Government or the Screening Committee, as the case may be, shall have to consider entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter. The record to be considered would include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls both favourable and adverse with an emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee, to find out whether a Government servant has outlived his utility in service. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with more importance attached to record of and performance during the later years, the Government is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not. The adverse remark which form part of service record and character roll would be material though minor penalty may be imposed on given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct. The object shall always be in public interest.
The material question posed to the Court on a challenge is whether the entire record of service was considered or not? What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer could reach at that decision? The rationale is that such an assessment must be based on "entire service record". What has to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come to the conclusion as to whether the employee concerned has become a dead wood and it is in the public interest to retire him compulsorily. The authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry. It may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person.
The order of compulsory retirement does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the statutory rules. As the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic and is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer, very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases. Interference is permissible only on the ground of non-application of mind, malafides, perversity, or arbitrariness shown on the face of record, or if there is non-compliance with the statutory duty by the Statutory authority. Power to retire compulsorily the Government servant in terms of the service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms bonafide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.
Reference may be made to the decisions of Apex Court in State of Orissa and others vs Ram Chandra Das reported in (1996) 5 SCC 331, State of U.P and others vs Vijay Kumar Jain reported in (2002) 3 SCC 641, Rajasthan SRTC vs Babu Lal Jangir reported in (2013) 10 SCC 551, R. C. Chandel vs High Court of M.P and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 58.
Thus, it can be seen that interference in the matters of compulsory retirement by the Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under the constitutional mandate is very restricted and the Courts shall have to tread on the issue with utmost care and caution by reason of very limited scope of interference. It is not within the scope of judicial review to go into adequacy or sufficiency of the material which forms basis to pass an order of compulsory retirement, as the over all consideration by the Government or the Screening committee is to form a subjective opinion as to whether the Government servant is to compulsorily retire in public interest. But in forming such an opinion there cannot be a consideration to any irrelevant material. The subjective satisfaction must necessarily be founded upon objective material. The opinion must necessarily be based upon cogent material and established to have been formulated upon due application of mind on an assessment of the entire service record. Once a challenge is made, the Court must be satisfied that the formation of opinion is neither whimsical nor arbitrary but in fact purely upon an objective assessment of the suitability of the employee. It is to be remembered that Courts will not interfere merely because another view could possibly be taken. Reference be made to State of U.P and another vs Lalsa Ram reported in (2001) 3 SCC 389, Pyare mohan lal vs State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 693 and Rajasthan SRTC vs Babu Lal Jangir (supra).
In light of the above legal principles, upon examination of the record of the instant case, this Court finds that the Screening Committee considered the entire service record of the petitioner, i.e. record of 10 years services rendered by him and it was found that three adverse entries were awarded to the petitioner after completion of departmental enquiries. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges of dereliction of duty and disobedience of orders of his superiors. The extract of three adverse Censure entries awarded to the petitioner vide orders dated 7.5.2013, 20.4.2017 and 18.5.2017 are as follows:-
(i)"lEiw.kZ rF;ksa ij lE;d fopkjksijkUr of.kZr vkjksi fl} ik;s tkus ij Jh 'kSysUnz dqekj JhokLro] midkjkiky dks fuEuor ifjfufUnr fd;k tkrk gS %& "tyk dkjkxkj eqtQQjuxj ls ftyk dkjkxkj xkthiqj vkns'k fnukad 30&07&2012 }kjk LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tkus rFkk v/kh{kd] ftyk dkjkxkj eqtQQjuxj }kjk fnuka 10&08&2012 dks ftyk dkjkxkj xkthiqj ij ;ksxnku fd;s tkus ds funsZ'k ds lkFk dk;ZeqDr fd;s tkus ds mijkUr Hkh ftyk dkjkxkj xkthiqj ij ;ksxnku u djuk rFkk vkyks{; vof/k esa tuin y[kum ls tuin eqtQQjuxj tkuk vkSj okil y[kuÅ vkuk ijUrq v/kh{kd] ftyk dkjkxkj xkthiqj }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'k ds vuqikyu gsrq eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk fd;s tkus dks iw.kZ fl) djrk gS] ftlds fy;s Jh 'kSysUnz dqekj JhokLro] mi dkjkiky dh ifjfuUnk dh tkrh gSA bl vkns'k dh izfr Jh 'kSysUnz dqekj JhokLro] mi dkjkiky dh pfj= iath esa j[kh tk;sxh A fuyEcu dky ds vo'ks'k osru ,oa HkRrs ds laca/k esa vyx ls dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl fuxZr fd;k tk;sxk A blds lkFk mDr izpfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA "
(ii)"3& lk{;ksa ,oa vfHky[kksa ls Li"V gS fd vipkjh vf/kdkjh dh ?kVuk frfFk dh jkf= esa rhljh jkf= x'r fu/kkZfjr Fkh vkSj vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj buds }kjk jkf= 03 &06 ls 04&05 cts ds e/; dkjkxkj dk x'r fd;k x;k vkSj dq'kyrk dh fjiksVZ vafdr dh x;h] tcfd jkf= 12&00 cts ls 4&00 cts e/; cSjd la[;k &4 ds 03 canhx.k jkf=dkyhu ySfVªu dh lfj;k dkVdj ogka ls fudydj esuoky ls iyk;u dj pqds FksA bl izdkj vipkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk jkf= x'r ds nkSjku taxyksa] vMxMkas dks psd ugha fd;k x;k rFkk cSjd esa cafn;ksa ugha djk;h x;h vkSj jkf= x'r ek= [kkuk iwrhZ djrs gq, dkjkxkj esa dq'kyrk dh QthZ fjiksVZ vafdr dh x;h] tcfd cSjd M;wVh o esuoky M;wVh ij rSukr deh Hkh viuh M;wVh izfr lrdZ ugh FksA ;fn buds }kjk fof/kor Jh 'kSysUnz dqekj JhokLro] mi dkjkiky dh vihy fnukad 24&09&2016 esa vafdr rF;kssa ds laca/k esa egkfujh{kd dkjkxkj iz'kklu ,oa lq/kkj lsok;sa] m0iz0 y[kuÅ ls izkIr vk[;k ds ijh{k.kksijkUr ik;k x;k gS fd egkfujh{kd dkjkxkj }kjk fuxZr vkns'k fnukad 15&07&2016 ftlesa }kjk 02 okf"kZd osruo`f);ksa dks jkdsrs gq, ifjfuUnk dk n.M fn;k x;k gSA"
(iii)"mijksDr vfu;ferrkvksa ds fufeRr m0iz0 ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy fu;ekoyh &1999 ds fu;e &10 ds vUrxZr nks"kh ik;s tkus ij Jh 'kSysUnz dqekj JhokLro] mi dkjkiky] fnukad 22&07&2000 ls 20&09&2000 rd pdzkf/kdkjh ds :i esa½dks fuEuor ifjfuUnk ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gS%& ªftyk dkjkxkj] y[kuÅ ij Jh 'kSysUnz dqekj JhokLro] mi dkjkiky fnukad 22&07&2000 ls 20&09&2000 rd pdzkf/kdkjh ds :i esa vius nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu Bhd izdkj ls ugha fd;k x;k] is'kh ls ykSVus ij cfUn;ksa dh ryk'kh esa tk;t lkeku Hkh cfUn;ksa ds ikl ugha jgus fn;k tkrk Fkk rFkk cfUn;ksa dks vPNk Hkkstu ugha feyrk Fkk] nky dh xq.koRrk [kjkc gksrh Fkh A bl izdkj Jh 'kSysUnz dqekj JhokLro }kjk vR;Ur vuqRrjnk;fRoiw.kZ ,oa vlarks"ktud vkpj.k dk ifjp; fn;k x;k rFkk pdzkf/kdkjh ds :i esa vius nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa vlQy jgsaA"
Apart from the above, the petitioner was held guilty of interacting with the Media personnel of T.V channel 'News Nation' and the conversation was telecasted on 1/2.10.2013. It was found that there may not be truth in the video footage but the act of the petitioner in entertaining Media Personnel had resulted in tarnishing the image of the department and is in contravention of the Code of Conduct of the Government servants. He was, therefore, awarded a major punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.
The broad sheet of the material placed before the screening committee based on ten years service record of the petitioner has been appended with the affidavit filed by the respondents.
A perusal of the above material further indicates that a departmental enquiry had also been initiated against the petitioner vide Office order dated 3.10.2017 based on an inspection report dated 3.7.2012 wherein in the surprise inspection conducted by the C.O.C.T, O.O.G team, 4 mobile phones were recovered from a prisoner. The Deputy Inspector General (Prison), Agra has been appointed as an enquiry officer.
The material placed before the Court, thus, categorically indicates that entire service record of the petitioner was placed before the Screening Committee which upon due consideration thereof reached at the conclusion that continuing the petitioner in Government service would not be in public interest. The material considered by the Screening Committee cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. It is not possible for the Court to look to the adequacy or sufficiency of material considered by the Screening Committee so as to form an opinion than that has been formed by the Committee. It is not a case where order of compulsory retirement can be said to have been passed as a punishment. The orders of adverse entries awarded to the petitioner record that the conduct of the petitioner was not found up to the mark. Mere fact that minor punishment had been awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority would not be a reason to interfere in the decision of the competent authority to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The recommendations of the Screening Committee based on the assessment of entire service record of the petitioner was duly approved by the competent officer. Within the limited scope of judicial review, it is not possible for this Court to take another view on the material placed on record. No perversity or arbitrariness could be shown on the face of the order of compulsory retirement. There is no allegation of malafide.
Now, the only question remains to be examined is whether the order of compulsory retirement can be said to be stigmatic? A bare perusal of the order of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner indicates that it is an innocuous order whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the date of issuance of the order in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 56(C), and in lieu of 3 months notice salary and other allowances are payable to him. The language employed in the order does not suggest or give an indication of the adverse material against the petitioner. Being a simplicitor order, it cannot be said to be stigmatic by any stretch of imagination.
From all angles, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be faulted. No interference is called for. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that only material before the Screening Committee was the order of dismissal dated 22.2.2018, which in turn is based on the sting operation, is found wholly misconceived.
In view of the above, the said writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
As far as the connected writ petition no.57883 of 2013 is concerned, the same is rendered infructuous. Dismissed as Infructuous.
Order Date :- 28.4.2020 Harshita