JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
2. The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Armed Police. During the relevant period he was working as Head Constable, 53. A.P., Police Lines, Varanasi. A charge sheet was served upon him alleging that on 4.12.1994 he left the place of duty and under the influence of liquor committed acts of indiscipline in Barrack No. 6, Police Lines, He was using filthy language, eased himself in barracks and was found abusing the officers, and thereafter slipped away to avoid medical examination.
3. The petitioner denied the charges and alleged malafides He was allowed to cross examine witnesses and led evidence in defence. By an order dated 17.7.1995, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi accepted the finding of the enquiry officer, and punished the petitioner by reverting him to the original pay scale for a period of three years. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 12.2.1998 and the revision was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 12.9.1999. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 4337 of 2000 in which counter and rejoinder affidavits have been excharged.
4. During the pendency to the writ petition the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi passed an order dated 4.11.2000 to retire the petitioner from service in public interest. The order of compulsory retirement was passed on the recommendation of the Committee consisting of Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj and Additional Superintendent of Police, Deoria. By writ petition No. 49574 of 2000, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not medically examined. Proper enquiry was not held nor any charge sheet was given to the petitioner for awarding major penalty. The order is thus violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. With regard to compulsory retirement, it is contended that the entire service record of the petitioner was not examined. The order is arbitrary, illegal and has not been made in public interest. An order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rules 56 (c) of Handbook Volume-11 Part II to IV, amounts to a punishment and that the record docs not demonstrate that the petitioner had become a deadwood or that it was in public interest to weed him out of service. He further submits relying upon the Judgements of this Court in Devi Saran Sharma v. District Magistrate/Zila Adhikari, meerut and Ors., 2000 (1) UPLBEC 582; Vijai Kumar Jain, Executive Engineer in R.E.S. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1508; Bhoop Narain Tiwari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 1 UPLBEC 35 that there was no such material available on record which may have justified the opinion of the Screening Committee to compulsorily retire petitioner from service.
6. I have examined the order dated 17.7.1995 by which the petitioner was punished by reverting him to the original pay scale for three years. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice to which he submitted his; reply. The enquiry officer gave full and adequate opportunity of defence to the petitioner and found that he committed serious acts of indiscipline and had run away, when ordered to be taken for medical examined. The prosecution witness supported the allegations that at the lime of the incident he was under the influence of liquor. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in defence. The Head Constable Major Radhey Mohan Singh did not support the prosecution, but then there was oral evidence of Shri Jagat Pal Singh. R.I.-II, which supported the findings in the preliminary enquiry that the petitioner had refused to subject himself for medical examination. The order of punishment in my opinion is supported by valid evidence and reasons. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that any relevant material was not considered by disciplinary authority, or that his findings are perverse. The punishment is not disproportionate to the charges.
7. Coming to the order of compulsory retirement the respondents have annexed the service record of the petitioners along with counter affidavit of Sri Kailsah Upadhyay, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sadar), Kushi Nagar. From this record, I find that the petitioner was given a punishment of stoppage of one increment by Superintendent of Police, Deoriu on 26.7.1988. By an order dated 17.4.1991 the Superintendent of Police, Deoria found that the petitioner had committed acts of indiscipline in refusing to attend duties and to deposit the arms and that on 12.5.1990 he was found quarrelling under the influence of liquor and was warned to behave in future. On 8.12.1995 a censure entry was awarded to the petitioner by Superintendent of Police (Rural) Varanasi for failing to attend duties and remaining absent without any authority for 99 days beginning from 2.1.1993 to 11.4.1993.
8. In the year 1997 by an order dated 26.12.1997 the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar awarded a censure entry to the petitioner for refusing to attend duties and to misbehaving with the Reserved Inspector. Again on 1.9.1999 the petitioner was given a censure entry for indiscipline and abusing officers under the influence of liquor. Lastly on; 29.1.2000 once again the petitioner was punished by withholding one increment for one year for refusing to attend duties on 14.9.1999.
9. These entries, are sufficient material to form an opinion with regard to conduct and character of the petitioner and his usefulness to the service. The fact that the petitioner was given a few appreciation letters for preparing dishes and that he was given some rewards for cooking good food in the mess, is not sufficient or relevant material to contradict the opinion of the Screening Committee to retire petitioner in public interest. The petitioner may be a good cook but was not found to be a disciplined employee. 1 do not find that the judgments cited by the petitioner help him in any manner. The law with regard to compulsory retirement is well settled. The order of compulsorily retirement has not been treated to he a punishment. Where there is sufficient material available on record to show that it is not in public interest to continue a Government servant after age of 50 years, the competent authority after screening the record can direct compulsory retirement. The order in the present case was made in public interest and does not cause any stigma or amount punishment.
10. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.