Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The order of compulsorily retirement refers to the report of the Screening Committee constituted by the respondents and proceeds to hold that in light of the recommendations made by that Committee and in exercise of powers conferred by Fundamental Rule 56(c), the petitioner was being compulsorily retired from service.

Upon notices being issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. However, on 6 August 2018, a Division Bench of the Court noted the specific averment made by the petitioner in paragraph 26 of the writ petition to the effect that his entire service records were not placed before the Screening Committee so as to enable it to form an opinion with respect to the petitioner being liable to be compulsorily retired. The Division Bench noted that while replying to the assertions made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition, the respondents had submitted a wholly vague and evasive reply. It was accordingly directed that the respondents would file a further affidavit showing the movement of the file/service book of the petitioner from the time that it was sent to the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest [PCCF] in 2008 till the date of the passing of the impugned order.

List in the second week of January 2019."

On 26 March 2019, Sri Niraj Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate General filed a third supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. From this affidavit, it is asserted that on 12 July 2017, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration) U.P. issued a directive requiring all concerned to furnish the relevant records with respect to officers of the Department who had attained the age of 50 years on 31 March 2017. The attention of the Court was then invited to a further communication of the PCCF dated 5 August 2017 directing all concerned officials to ensure that the service book of the Range Forest Officers be furnished and produced by 8 August 2017. Pursuant to this directive, it is asserted that the character roll of the petitioner and other allied service records were received in the office of the PCCF. Sri Tripathi further points out that as per the petitioner's own assertion his service record had been transmitted to the office of the PCCF in 2008. Sri Tripathi points out that the PCCF was a Member of the Screening Committee and since the entire records were present in his office they were duly produced and perused by the Screening Committee which was so constituted. Sri Tripathi further contends that even otherwise, the petitioner raises no dispute with respect to his character roll being present before the Screening Committee. According to him the allegation that the service book of the petitioner was not present is therefore clearly inconsequential.

The more fundamental flaw which this Court notes is a failure on the part of the Committee to either advert to or take into consideration the reports of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the two disciplinary proceedings which were pending against the petitioner prior to the impugned order coming to be passed. Undisputedly these reports in respect of the two charge-sheets were forwarded by the Enquiry Officer on 2 June 2017 and 6 June 2017 to the PCCF. Both these reports exonerated the petitioner of all the charges which stood levelled against him. These reports existed on the record of the respondents at the time when the Screening Committee met to assess the suitability of officers including the petitioner. These reports were addressed to the PCCF who was himself a member of the Screening Committee. It is also pertinent to note here that the learned Additional Advocate General despite a pointed query was unable to state whether these reports were accepted, acted upon or even rejected by the Disciplinary Authority prior to the passing of the impugned order. The Court in that backdrop is constrained to proceed on the presumption that although these reports of the Enquiry Officer existed on the record no further decision was taken in respect of these reports. More importantly the Screening Committee as is evident from a perusal of the broad-sheet which was drawn up by it had proceeded on the basis that the enquiry proceedings were still pending. In that view of the matter, it is more than evident that the Committee has failed to accord due application of mind to the entire record of service of the petitioner.

In the ultimate analysis the Court bears in mind that the petitioner had been awarded adverse entries in only 3 years during his entire service of almost 28 years. In the years immediately preceding the making of the impugned order, the conduct of the petitioner was assessed as "Good" and his integrity had also been certified. The Screening Committee has manifestly failed to accord due credence and weightage to these entries. It has also not recorded any satisfaction that the gravity of the allegations which led to the recordal of these adverse entries far outweighed and overshadowed the subsequent good entries which came to be awarded to the petitioner. Although the character entry for one year was withheld on account of pendency of a departmental enquiry, on the date when the Screening Committee met, the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges by the Enquiry Officer. These reports are not shown to have been either rejected by the Disciplinary Authority nor did the respondents establish that the Authority had directed further steps to be taken. The Screening Committee proceeded on the assumption that the disciplinary proceedings were pending when in fact the reports of the Enquiry Officer had been duly placed before the PCCF prior to the drawl of its recommendation. The PCCF was admittedly a member of the Screening Committee. The above is evidence of a failure on the part of the Screening Committee to exercise due application of mind and a manifest failure to take relevant factors into consideration. Applying the test of assessing the decision from the viewpoint of a reasonable and prudent person the Court comes to conclude that the opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner could not have been formed or arrived at. On an overall consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the order of compulsorily retirement impugned here.