Full Judgment
M. Katju. J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 22.2.1999 Annexure-3 to the writ petition- The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Assistant Engineer in the Rural Engineering Service in October, 1972 and was regularised on 14.5.1979. He had put in more than sixteeen years of service when he was served with theimpugned order of compulsory retirement dated 22,2.1999.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It appears that the compulsory retirement was done on the basis of the decision of the Screening Committee. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit the grounds given for passing the order of compulsory retirement are mentioned as follows :
'1. The order dated 8.2.1994 directed a recovery of Rs. 74, 994 from the salary of the petitioner and also stopped an increment in the pay scale of Excultive Engineer and awarded censure entry in his character roll for the year 1993-94.
2. Vide order dated 16.10.1986a warning was given to the petitioner.
3. Vide order dated 20.3.1993 another censure entry was recorded in his character roll.
4. Vide order dated 13.6.1997 the integrity of the petitioner was also not certified for committing irregularity in the work at Lucknow for the year 1983-84. He was also awarded censure entry for the year 1997-98.
5. Vide order dated 7.7.1998 disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner for committing irregularity at Hardoi Prakhand.'
4. Regarding the first ground, we have today quashed the order dated 8.2.1994 in Writ Petition No. 4247 of 1992. Hence, this ground has become non-existent. Regarding ground No. 2, it is stated in paragraph 10 (2) of the rejoinder-affidavit that it was for the first time through the counter-affidavit that the petitioner came to know about the warning dated 16.10.1986 and the same was not communicated to the petitioner. Moreover, the said warning is alleged to have been given in 1986 whereasthe impugned order of compulsory retirement is of the year 1999. It is settled law that the entries of only ten years prior to the order of compulsory retirement are to be seen and hence the alleged warning has to be ignored, particularly when it was not even communicated to the petitioner. Moreover there is a G. O. of 29.7.1989 which states that a warning entry shall not form part of the character roll/service record and has only to be kept in the personal file. The said G. O. dated 29.7.1989 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Hence that too cannot be taken Into consideration. In this connection reference may be made to our decision in Raj Kishore Goel v. State. Writ Petition No. 9954 of 1999 decided on 10.9.99.
5. As regards the third ground, the censure entry for the year 1997-98 relates to the alleged irregularity by the petitioner in his work at Lucknow for the year 1983-84. Thus, it relates to a period more than ten years prior to the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The said censure entry was challenged by the petitioner before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal which partly allowed the claim petition of the petitioner and directed that the censure entry be ordered to be placed for the year 1983-84 Instead of 1997-98. Hence this censure entry has also be ignored since it was for a period more than ten years perior to the impugned order of compulsory retirement.
6. As regards the disciplinary proceedings Initiated by order dated 7.7.1998 in paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that this disciplinary proceeding was not taken into account for the purpose of screening, and hence it has also to be ignored.
6. Thus, in our opinion there was no relevant basis or matelal before the screening committee to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Hence the order of compulsory retirement dated 22.2.1999 is arbitrary and illegal. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The impugned order ofcompulsory retirement dated 22.2.1999 is quashed with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.