JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector on 28th August, 1961. He was promoted to group II as Soil Conservation Inspector on 1st November, 1977. Thereafter on 12th July, 1978, he was confirmed on the post of Soil Conservation Inspector.
3. For the years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the petitioner was communicated adverse entry dated 27.7.1981 by Additional Agriculture Director (Administration) for not taking any interest in work, not achieving the target and for remaining on leave. Against this entry, the petitioner filed a representation, which was decided on 8th January. 1992. For the year 1984-85, the petitioner was again communicated adverse entry by the Soil Conservation Officer. Tehri Garhwal on 17th October, 1985, about his doubtful integrity for obliterating the entries in the measurement book by deliberately pouring ink. Against this entry also, the petitioner filed a representation on 7th January, 1986, which was rejected vide order dated 22nd May, 1990 by the Deputy Agriculture Director, Soil Conservation, Dehradun.
4. On 9th August, 1990, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Agriculture Director, Pauri and also filed a representation before the Director of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, Lucknow, in respect of the adverse entry made against him for the year 1984-85.
5. On 16th August, 1990, the petitioner was again communicated an adverse entry for the year 1989-90 by the Deputy Director of Agriculture Soil Conservation, Bareilly, regarding average work. Against this entry also, the petitioner had filed a representation and a reminder dated 12th September, 1991, was also sent by him but it evoked no response. On contra, the petitioner was communicated an order of compulsory retirement dated 18th January, 1992 passed by the Director of Agriculture, U. P.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been compulsorily retired despite a solitary entry against which he has filed an appeal and there is no other entry or material before the respondents for taking this decision. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that appeal of the petitioner was pending and it was not proper for the respondents to take into consideration the aforesaid entry to justify the impugned order of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 18.1.1992, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service is wholly arbitrary and unjustified and it is against the principle of natural justice. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no basis for passing the Impugned order of dismissal from service in public interest.
7. A perusal of the impugned order of compulsory retirement shows that the petitioner was to be paid 3 months' salary along with allowance from the date of receipt of retirement notice which has not been paid and not only this the condition precedent for passing the impugned order under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) of the Financial Hand Book retiring a Government servant compulsorily in public interest is also not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is in colourable exercise of power and the retirement of the petitioner is not in any way in public interest. It is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that only the ground on which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired is public interest.
The order of compulsory retirement is quoted below :
^^f"k funs'kky; mkj izns'k ,- oh-&2 vuqHkkx i=kad ,- ch- 2 [email protected] lffuax y[ku fnukad 18-1-1992 fnukad 18-1-1992 vkns'k QkbusfUl;y gSUM cqd [k.M 2] Hkkx&2 ls 4 rd es fn;s x;s vn~;kof/kd la'kksf/kr QUMkesUVy :y-&56 ds [k.M lh ds v/khu vf/kdkjkas ds iz;ksx djds eSa ih-MCyw- vEcsdj] f"k funs'kd] mkj izns'k tks ml in vkSj Js.kh dk fu;qDr gw] ftl ij Jh egkohj flag efyd] oxZ&2] Hkwfe laj{k.k fujh{kd] jkeiqj vkln gS] yksd fgr esa vkns'k nsrk gw fd Jh egkohj flag efyd] oxZ&2] Hkwfe laj{k.k fujh{kd bl vkns'k ds fuxZr gksus ds fnukad ds vijkUg ls lsok fuo`k gks tk;sxsa rFkk rhu ekg dh vof/k ds fy;s og mlh nj ij vius osru vkSj Hkks] ;fn dksbZ gks] dh /kujkf'k ds cjkcj /ku ds nkosnkj gksus ds gdnkj gksaxs] ftl nj ij og mudh viuh lsok fuo`k ds Bhd igys ik jgsa Fks A gLrk{kj ih-MCyw- vEcsdj f"k funs'kd] mkj izns'k**
9. The standing counsel has contended that decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner has been taken on the basis of entire service records which were screened by a duly constituted screening committee. The said committee considered the petitioner's entire service records including his A.C.Rs. and comments of his immediate boss and the said committee came to the conclusion that retention of the petitioner was not in public interest in view of doubtful integrity and inefficient working and as such, the said committee recommended for his compulsory retirement. This argument is based on Annexure-CA-1, which is a letter of Joint Director, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, dated 5.12.1991.
10. It is submitted by the respondents that in accordance with the Policy of Government to weed out inefficient, unscrupulous, dishonest, corrupt and dead wood employees are compulsorily retired from service. The entire service records of the petitioner was reviewed by the screening committee and the petitioner's integrity was found doubtful. An employee of doubtful integrity cannot be considered as efficient, honest and efficiency is to be assessed from the service record. There is tangible material on record to establish that the petitioner was inefficient worker and when he took interest in work he could only rate average. As such, the compulsory retirement was just and proper and in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook Vol. II to IV.
11. The petitioner along with rejoinder-affidavit as well as supplementary-affidavit has annexed the letter dated 22.8.1999. He has placed reliance on paragraph 2 of the letter in which it has been stated that from the personal service records of the petitioner, it is clear that he suffers from cancer and was admitted in Medical College, Meerut, for treatment during the period 10.9.1983 to 30.9.1984 and he was also sanctioned earned leave, etc. It is clearly stated in this paragraph that the petitioner was on leave legally granted as such his absence of leave was regularized by the competent authority. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that he was on leave on false pretext.
12. From perusal of the said letter dated 22.8.1999, it is established that the petitioner had also some money of the Government with him, which he had not deposited with the department.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chuni Lal Shah, 1999 (1) SCC 529, held that:
"Public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service while services of dishonest or corrupt or those who are almost dead wood, are to be dispensed with.
In order to find out whether any Government servant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient administration, an objective view of overall performance of that Government servant has to be taken.
Performance of a Government servant is reflected in annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning efficiency, honesty or integrity of a Government servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. If character roll is studded with adverse entries or overall categorization of employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such Government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of "integrity". If this is missing, whole bundle would disperse. A Government servant has therefore, to keep his belt tight."
The decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily has been taken not only on the basis of only a single adverse entry made in his character roll but on the basis of his entire service record and on the recommendation of the screening committee. The said committee after going through the service record of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the retention of the petitioner in Government service was not in public interest.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and position of law, I find no illegality in the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The State cannot be expected to carry the dead woods in service who are required to be replaced by efficient and hard working persons. This Court will not interfere into the findings of fact arrived at by the screening committee after perusal of the entire service record of the petitioner. No illegality could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Impugned order of compulsory retirement. It is not a fit case for Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of this case.
15. The petition is dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.