Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Nath Mishra vs District Judge Gorakhpur on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2556 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Mishra
Respondent :- District Judge Gorakhpur
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Kumar,Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal,Ashish Mishra,Samir Sharma
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by impugned order dated 7.10.2014, the respondents have compulsory retired the petitioner. The petitioner was working on the post of Clerk in the District Judgeship, Gorakhpur. Initially, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982, however, after crossing the age of 50 years, the present impugned order has been passed against the petitioner on the basis of a report of committee of three members who have recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the basis of service records of the petitioner where at 11 instances the petitioner was found to have conducted himself as a person who is unbecoming of a government servant. In most of the cases, the records of the court has been misplaced by the petitioner and the proceedings were drawn. He submits that in the compulsory retirement order, the aforesaid entries has been taken into consideration and thereafter the order of compulsory retirement has been passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of compulsory retirement is not in accordance with law as for the last ten years, prior to passing of the impugned order, the service record of the petitioner is better than the previous service record and as such the order of compulsory retirement is not tenable.
Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by the respondent on the basis of recommendation of three member committee consisting of two District Judges and one Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the entire service records from the year 1994 up till the year 2013, just prior to passing of the compulsory retirement order, the petitioner has been involved in misplacing of the records of the court. He submits that such a conduct of the petitioner is taken very seriously by the employer as the proceedings before the employer are court proceedings and any misplacing of the record would affect the court proceedings and as such a serious view has been taken and the petitioner has been compulsory retired. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the order of compulsory retirement unless he has shown that the order has been passed on arbitrary basis or de hors the records. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court passed in Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 and Central Industrial Security Force Vs. HC (GD) Om Prakash, (2022) 5 SCC 100.
It is to be seen that the efficiency of the government offices including the District Judgeship is required to be maintained. Such an efficiency can be maintained by either training the employees for working towards efficient duty or by weeding out those employees who do not perform up to the level. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has been found to be involved in misplacing the records of the District Court and in this respect 11 instances have been recorded in the order of compulsory retirement. The respondents have taken into consideration the entire service records of the petitioner and thereafter has passed the order of compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to any arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order passed by the respondent and as such, the impugned order is passed in accordance with law.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the impugned order the retiral benefits of the petitioner in consequence of the impugned order has not been paid till date. In this respect although there is no prayer in the writ petition, on the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is hereby provided that the petitioner may file an appropriate representation before the authority concerned who is required to release the amount. In case the petitioner files the aforesaid representation within thirty days, the same shall be considered and decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with law expeditiously.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
VMA
