CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1992) 03 AHC CK 0062

Krishan Singh Garia vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 25 March 1992 · Citation: (1992) 2 AWC 813

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Katju, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6523 of 1990

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 358 words

M. Katju, J.—The Petitioner was in the service of the Respondent No. 1 and by means of this writ petition he is challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 1-3 1990 Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. The Petitioner has alleged that he received a chargesheet dated 16-1-1988 to which he sent a reply, but before the enquiry could be completed he was compulsorily retired by the impugned order dated 1-3-1990. The Petitioner has also alleged that against the adverse entries for 1984-85 and 19x7-88 he has made representations which were pending when the impugned order was passed.

2.

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. In para 3 (x) and (xi) it has been stated that a screening committee was constituted which considered the case of the Petitioner and the adverse entries awarded to him and after considering the same decided that it was not. in the public interest 1o retain the Petitioner in service. It has been further staled in para 3 (viii) that under Regulation 38(2)(b) an entry against which a representation is pending may also be taken into consideration in para 12 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the representation against the adverse entries were before the screening committee when it considered the Petitioners'' case.

3.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 1-3-1990 shows that the order is being passed in the public interest and not on the basis of any misconduct committed by the Petitioner. Thus the order is not punitive in nature and consequently it was not necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order.

4.

It is settled law that an order of compulsory retirement, if it is not punitive or arbitrary, is not an order of punishment requiring opportunity of hearing The impugned order in the present case is neither punitive nor arbitrary. It was passed after consideration by a screening committee. Hence it cannot be said to be illegal.

5.

In view of the above facts there is no merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed.

6.

There will be no order as to costs.