Anil Kumar Wadera vs U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 21581 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
 
(Lucknow)
 
***********
 
Judgment Reserved on 15.09.2022
 
Judgment Delivered on 19.12.2022
 
Reserved
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2001755 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Wadera
 
Respondent :- U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Through Managing Director Lko & Anoth
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Renu Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Amit K. Singh Bhadauriya, Vikrant Raghuvansi
 
***********
 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

1. Heard.

2. This petition was filed in the year 2015 challenging an order dated 25.03.2008 by which the petitioner was compulsory retired and also challenging another order dated 22.09.2015 rejecting the petitioner's representation against the said compulsory retirement.

3. The petitioner would have retired in the ordinary course on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2009, but, for the compulsory retirement on 25.03.2008.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 15.10.1976 in the erstwhile U.P. Electricity Board, subsequently when U.P. Power Corporation Limited came into being, from 14.01.2000, he became employee of the latter Corporation. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 2000. While working as Executive Engineer, the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited constituted a Screening Committee comprising of the Managing Director, Director (Personnel Management and Administration Finance) and Director, Distribution Unit of the Corporation to screen the records of Executive Engineers and above for the purposes of considering their compulsory retirement. The Appointing Authority of the post of Executive Engineer was the Chairman of the Corporation. The Screening Committee constituted as above, considered the case of the petitioner along with various other Officers and recommended his compulsory retirement giving reasons for the same. The said recommendations were placed before the Chairman of the Corporation with the noting that the entire material be considered by the Chairman appropriately and he may take a decision in this regard after due and proper application of his mind and after arriving at his satisfaction in the matter as per his own wisdom. Accordingly, the Chairman accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee on 23.03.2008. Subsequently on 25.03.2008 an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed. The petitioner did not challenge the said order immediately instead he challenged one of the punishment orders dated 04.05.2005 in appeal which was rejected and thereafter the said punishment order and appellate order were put to challenge before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 156 of 2008 which was allowed on 28.01.2014 and thereafter a representation was moved in the year 2015 as already referred which has also been rejected and ultimately this petition was filed in the year 2015. In the meantime an order was passed on 12.06.2009 directing deduction of 5% of the post retiral benefits of the petitioner after holding inquiry in this regard pertaining to certain allegations which is evident from the records which had been produced before this Court at the time of hearing and had been retained till pronouncement of the judgment.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Renu Mishra, was that the Screening Committee formulated a criteria for recommending compulsory retirement which entailed awarding marks for the number of punishments imposed upon the Officers. In this regard, she submitted that the Screening Committee had taken into consideration the punishment of censure entry and stoppage of two annual increments cumulatively as imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 04.05.2005 and had awarded 40 marks for the same, but, subsequently, this punishment order was quashed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal on 28.01.2014, therefore, out of total 80 marks awarded by the Screening Committee to the petitioner, 40 will have to be deducted leaving only 40 marks.

6. She has further submitted that as per the criteria evolved by the Screening Committee itself, it was required to consider such Officers for compulsory retirement who had secured 100 or more marks based on the punishments awarded to them, therefore, the petitioner did not clearly fall within the zone of consideration, but, he was recommended for retirement only on account of ill-will of the then Managing Director, Mr. Awanish Awasthi.

7. Per contra, Mr. Nirav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the Power Corporation submitted that Mr. Awanish Awasthi has not been made by him, therefore, no allegations of mala fide, if at all they have been made in the pleadings, could be considered by this Court. He further submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not read the criteria formulated by the Screening Committee properly. In fact, as per the said criteria, the Screening Committee considered such persons who secured 100 or more marks or whose compulsory retirement had been recommended by the Managing Director or any higher Officer. The Managing Director himself was part of the Screening Committee and based on the material placed before him, he along with two other Members of the Committee recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner to the Chairman of the Corporation who was the Appointing Authority. The Chairman of the Corporation considered the entire material and accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee. It being a case of subjective satisfaction by the Competent Authority based on the objective material, no interference was called for by this Court. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court in this regard in the case of Central Industrial Security Force vs. HC (GD) Om Prakash1 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court had reiterated the legal position that compulsory retirement did not cause any prejudice to the Government Servant/employee. It could be interfered only in a case of mala fide, arbitrariness or perversity which was not the case herein. Principles of natural justice were not applicable. The entire records including the punishment orders are open for consideration by the concerned authority including any adverse remarks or punishment awarded to an Officer or employee prior to his promotion or processing of his efficiency bar. Compulsory retirement in public interest is a prerogative of the Government/employer and should not be interfered with if it is bona fide.

8. Court has perused the records of the case and the original records produced before it. The records reveal that the Screening Committee was constituted by the Chairman of the Corporation who was the Appointing Authority of the petitioner on 29.12.2007. It comprises the Managing Director of the Corporation and two other Directors. The Screening Committee considered the modalities to be adopted while considering recommendations of the compulsory retirement of the concerned Officers in its meeting dated 25.01.2008. It decided to award certain marks for the punishments awarded to the Officers. In addition to the marks awarded for punishments, service records, medical condition, non-compliance of the transfer orders and exertion of undue influence or pressure, ACRs of ten years and recommendation of the Controlling Officer for compulsory retirement, etc. would be examined and studied in totality and efficiency, skill and utility for the department in the context of the Officers, would be examined. This was done in the meeting dated 25.01.2008.

9. The provision for compulsory retirement is contained in 2 (d) of mRrj izns'k jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn ¼deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok fu;qfDr½ ¼f}rh; la'kks/ku½ fofue;] 1993 which reads as under:

"2¼d½ vc rd vuqlfjr fdlh fu;e] vkns'k vFkok izpyu ds gksrs gq;s Hkh vkSj bu fofu;eksa ds fdlh vU; [k.M esa fn;s x;s vU;Fkk lafo/kku ds vfrfjDr ifj"kn ds deZpkfj;ksa dh vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRRk dh frfFk og frfFk gksxh] tc og 58 o"kZ dh vk;q xzg.k dj ysxkA ifj"kn dh fyf[kr iwoZ Lohd`fr ij] vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRRk dh vk;q izkIr dj ysus ds i'pkr Hkh mls lsok esa jgus fn;k tk ldrk gS fdUrq cgqr gh fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vfrfjDr mls 60 o"kZ dh vk;q ds i'pkr lsok esa ugha jgus fn;k tk;sxkA

izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ifj"kn ds ,sls deZpkfj;ksa dh] tks bu fofu;eksa ds izo`RRk gksus dh frfFk vFkkZr 28-11-88 ds rRdky iwoZ lsokjr Fks vkSj ftUgsa ifj"kn us vius fdlh vkns'k ;k fofu;e ds vUrxZr fuEu oxhZ; lsok dks ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gks vFkok ftuds izfr:i jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu 60 o"kZ dh vk;q rd lsok djus ds gdnkj Fks] dh vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRRk dh frfFk og gksxh ftl frfFk dks mudh vk;q 60 o"kZ dh gks tk;sA fdUgha cgqr gh fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vkSj fcuk ifj"kn dh fyf[kr iwoZ Lohd`fr ds] mUgsa ml frfFk ds i'pkr lsok esa ugh jgus fn;k tk;sxkA

LIk"Vhdj.k&

bu fofu;eksa ds vUrxZr lsok fuo`fRRk ds iz;kstukFkZ tks dEkZpkjh fuEu oxZ ds ekus tk;sxsa os] le; chrus ds lkFk inuke ifjorZu gq;s fcuk mPp osru eku izkIr gksus ij Hkh mlh oxZ ds ekus tkrs jgsxsaA

¼[k½ [k.M¼d½ esa fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vFkok dksbZ Hkh izkf/kdkjh ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khUkLFk gks] fdlh Hkh le; ifj"kn ds fdlh deZpkjh lsA pkgs og LFkk;h gks vFkok vLFkk;hA tu fgr esa lsok fuo`fRRk gks tkus dh vis{kk dj ldrk gS] ijUrq izfrcU/k ;g gksxk fd ,sls deZpkjh us chl o"kksZa dh vgZa lsok ,oa 50 o"kksZa dh vk;q izkIr dj yh gksA ifj"kn dk dksbZ deZpkjh Hkh 45 o"kZ dh vk;q iwjh dj ysus ij ;fn pkgs rks fu;qfDRk izkf/kdkjh dks rhu ekg dk uksfVl nsdj fdlh Hkh le; ,sfPNd :i ls lsok fuo`RRk gks ldrk gSA izfrcU/k ;g gksxk fd mlus U;wure 20 o"kksZa dh vgZa lsok iwjh dj yh gksA

x- ,slh uksfVl dh vof/k rhu ekg gksxhA

izfrcU/k ;g gS fd&

1- fdlh ,sls ifj"kn ds deZpkjh dks fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls] vFkok fdlh vU; izkf/kdkjh ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khuLFk gks] ds vkns'k ls ,slh uksfVl ds fcuk ;k vYikof/k dh uksfVl ij rRdky lsok fuo`Rr fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj ,slh lsok fuo`fRRk ij ifj"kn dk dEkZpkjh] uksfVl dh vof/k ds fy;s ;k ;Fkk fLFkfr] ,slh uksfVl rhu ekl ls ftruh de gks mruh vof/k ds fy;s mlh nj ij vius osru vkSj HkRRks] ;fn dksbZ gksa dh /kujkf'k ds cjkcj /ku dk nkosnkj gksus dk gdnkj gksxk] ftl nj ij og mudks viuh lsok fuo`fRRk ds Bhd igys ik jgk FkkA

II. ;fn fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vFkok vU; izkf/kdkjh ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khuLFk gks pkgs rks og fdlh ifj"kn ds deZpkjh dks fdlh uksfVl ds fcuk ;k vYikof/k dh uksfVl ij vkSj uksfVl ds cnys esa mlls fdlh 'kkfLr dk Hkqxrku djus dh vis{kk fd;s fcuk] lsok fuo`RRk gksus dh vuqKk ns ldrk gSA

vxzsrj izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ,sls ifj"kn ds deZpkjh }kjk ftuds fo:) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fopkjk/khu ;k vklUUk gks] nh xbZ uksfVl rHkh izHkkoh gksxh tc og fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk vFkok dksbZ vU; izkf/kdkjh }kjk ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khuLFk gks Lohdkj dj yh tk; fdUrq fdlh vklUu vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dh n'kk esa deZpkjh dks uksfVl Lohdkj u fd;s tkus dh lwpuk uksfVl dh vof/k lekIr gksus ds iwoZ esa ns nh tk;sxhA

izfrcU/k ;g Hkh gS fd LosPNk lsok fuo`RRk gksus dh fy;s [k.M [k ds v/khu ifj"kn ds deZpkjh }kjk ,d ckj nh xbZ uksfVl mlds }kjk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vFkok] dksbZ vU; izkf/kdkjh ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khuLFk gks dh vquKk ds vfrfjDr] okil ugha yh tk ldsxhA

?k- izR;sd ifj"kn ds dEkZpkjh dks] tks bu fofu;eksa ds v/khu lsok fuo`RRk gksrk gS ;k ftlls lsok fuo`RRk gksus dh vis{kk dh tkrh gS ;k ftls lsok fuo`Rr gksus dh vuqKk nh tkrh gS] lqlaxr fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj vkSj muds izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu jgrs gq,] lsok fuo`RRk lEcU/kh ykHk] ;fn dksbZ gks] miyC/k gksxsaA

vxzsrj izfrcU/k ;g gS fd tgka ifj"kn dk dksbZ deZpkjh ;fn ,sfPNd lsok fuo`RRk gksrk gS ;k mls bl fofu;e ds vUrxZRk ,sfPNd lsok fuo`fRRk dh vuqKk nh tkrh gS rks fu;qfDRk vf/kdkjh mls isU'ku ,oa xszP;qVh ;fn dksbZ gks ds mn~ns';ksa fufeRRk ikap o"kksZa dh vfrfjDr lsok dk YkkHk vFkok ,slh vof/k dk ykHk tks mlus ;fn viuh lkekU; lsok fuo`fRRk ds fnukad rd dh lsok djds iw.kZ dh gksrh blesa ls tks Hkh de gksxk] ns ldrk gSA

Li"Vhdj.k&

fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vFkok dksbZ vU; izkf/kdkjh ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khUkLFk gks] [k.M [k ds v/khu mlesa ;Fkk fofufnZ"V lsok fuo`fRRk ds fy;s ifj"kn ds deZpkjh ls vis{kk djus dk fu.kZ; ml izkf/kdkjh }kjk ,slk djuk tufgr esa izrhr gksus ij fy;k tk;sxk fdUrq ;gka ij nh xbZ fdlh ckr ls ;g ugha le>k tk;sxk fd vkns'k esa bldk mYYks[k djus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gS fd ,slk fu.kZ; tu fgr esa fy;k x;k gSA

2-¼v½ ;g lUrq"V gksus ds fy;s fd ifj"kn ds fdlh deZpkjh dks [k.M [k ds v/khu lsok fuo`RRk fd;k tkuk tufgr esa gksxk] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ;k dksbZ vU; izkf/kdkjh] ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khuLFk gks] ifj"kn ds deZpkjh dh n{krk ,oa mi;ksfxrk dks fopkjus gsrq dksbZ Hkh lkexzh ftuesa lsok vfHkys[k] okf"kZd xksiuh; vk[;k;sa] lrdZrk vf/k"Bku dh dksbZ vk[;k] tkap vk[;k] ;k mlls lEcfU/kr lkexzh ij fopkj dj ldrs gSaA

2¼c½ vfHkO;fDr **fu;qfDRk izkf/kdkjh** dk rkRi;Z ,sls vf/kdkjh ls gS ftls ,sls in ij ;k lsok esa] ftlls lsok fuo`RRk gksus dh vis{kk ifj"kn ds deZpkjh ls dh xbZ gks ;k ifj"kn dk deZpkjh lsok fuo`RRk gksuk pkgrk gks] ekSfyd fu;qfDr djus dks rRle; vf/kdkj izkIr gks vkSj vfHkO;fDr **vgZa lsok dk ogh vFkZ gksxk tks lsok fuo`RRk gksus okys O;fDRk ls lEcfU/kr rRle; izHkkoh] lqlaxr fofu;eksa ;k vkns'kksa esa gksxsaA

2¼l½ fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vFkok og izkf/kdkjh ftldk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/khuLFk gks] dk izR;sd vkns'k ftlesa ifj"kn ds deZpkjh ls fofu;e ds [k.M x ds izFke izfrcU/kkRed [k.M ds v/khu rRdky lsok fuo`RRk gksus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gks] fuxZr fd;s tkus ds fnukad ds vijkUg ls izHkkoh gksxk] fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;fn mlds fuxZr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr lEc} ifj"kn dk dEkZpkjh lnk'k;rk ls vkSj ml vkns'k dh vufHkKrk ls vius in ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djrk jgrk gS rks mlds dk;ksZa dks bl rF; ds gksrs gq, Hkh fd og igys gh lsok fuo`RRk gks x;k gS] fof/k ekU; le>k tk;sxkA

2¼n½ bu fofu;eksa vFkok ml fufeRRk fdlh vkns'k ;k vuqns'k ls dksbZ ckr ,slh ugh le>h tk;sxh ftlls fd lsok fuo`fRRRk ds lkFk lkFk ;k iwoZ uksfVl dh lEiw.kZ vof/k ;k mlds Hkkx ds fy;s ifj"kn ds deZpkjh dks osru ds okLrfod Hkqxrku djus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gS] rFkk ,slk Hkqxrku djus ls vkns'k dh fof/k ekU;rk ij dksbZ izHkko iM+sxkA"

10. As regards the Screening Committee since prior to coming into force of the Transfer Scheme dated 14.01.2000 under the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 by which the U.P. Power Corporation Limited was constituted, there was a provision in this regard as contained in OM dated 22.02.1991, etc. as were applicable to the erstwhile U.P. Electricity Board, of which the U.P. Power Corporation Limited was a successor, therefore, with reference to it, vide Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2000 of the U.P. Power corporation Limited, a provision was made for constitution of such Screening Committee in the U.P. Power Corporation Limited by reconstituting the erstwhile Screening Committees. The said order has not been challenged.

11. It is true that one of punishments taken into consideration in the context of the petitioner was one imposed by the order dated 04.05.2005 for which 40 marks were awarded. It being so, the marks for punishment would come down to 40 from 80, but, this by itself does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner considering the fact that for the purposes of compulsory retirement the entire service records including the ACRs and other inputs as also the efficiency, etc. of the Officer can be taken into consideration. Punishments imposed is only one of the factors.

12. As regards the criteria fixed by the Committee in its meeting dated 05.03.2008 it is before the Court as part of the original records. No doubt, it refers to examination of such Officers who had secured 100 or more marks with regard to punishments imposed upon them, but, it also refers to other Officers whose compulsory retirement had been recommended by the Managing Director or Higher Officer. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the Managing Director of the Corporation was himself part of the Screening Committee, therefore, even if the petitioner secured only 40 marks so far punishment part is concerned, the Screening Committee which included the Managing Director considered the entire material and opined that the Officer was no longer useful for the department. It is necessary to quote the recommendation of the Screening Committee pertaining to the petitioner:

"Jh vfuy dqekj o lfefr }kjk buds vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd Jh o<+sjk&

I. dks dkjiksjs'ku vkns'k la[;k% 1416&05lh fnukad 22-07-98 }kjk uUnxzke vkoklh; dkyksuh] xkft;kckn esa dh tk jgh lkewfgd pksjh ds izdj.k esa fuUnk izfof"V dk n.M iznku fd;k x;k gSA viuh vLoLFkrk ,oa ikfjokfjd ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n'kkZrs gq;s esjB esa rSukrh dk vuqjks/k djrs jgs gS tcfd budk x`g tuin esjB gSA foxr esa yxHkx 14 o"kZ esjB e.My esa ,oa yxHkx 09 o"kZ esjB tuin esa rSukr jg pqds gS RkFkk LFkkukUrj.k uhfr ds vuqlkj budks esjB esa rSukr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA lkFk gh lkewfgd pksjh djkus ds izdj.k ,oa iqu% esjB esa rSukrh dk iz;kl dj lafyIrrk ds ifjizs{; esa foHkkxh; fgr lajf{kr ugh gSA

II. dks vkns'k la[;k% 2161&05lh fnukad 27-12-05 }kjk fuUnk izfof"V dk n.M iznku fd;k x;k gSA

III. dks vkns'k la[;k% 1303&05lh fnukad 04-05-05 }kjk fuUnk izfof"V rFkk lap;h izHkko ls nks osru o`f) de djus dk n.M iznku fd;k x;k gSA

IV. foxr esa 01 ckj vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ls v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk in ij izksUUkfr gsrq fd;s x;s p;u esa fnukad 28-07-06 dks vodzfer gq, gSaA

V. dks iznRRk n.Mksa ,oa vU; ekin.Mksa ds vk/kkj ij buds }kjk 80 vad vftZr fd;s x;s gSaA

mijksDr ds n`f"Vxr lfefr dk ;g fopkj cuk fd Jh o<+sjk dh n{krk ,oa dk;Zdq'kyrk fuEu Lrj dh gS rFkk bl dkj.k ls budh lsok;sa foHkkx ds fy;s mi;ksxh ugha gksxhA vr% budks vfuok;Z lsokfuo`RRk djus dh laLrqfr dh x;hA"

13. Reading of the aforesaid would indicate that on 22.07.1998 large scale theft of electricity had taken place in Nandgram residential colony, Ghaziabad which was under the control of the petitioner. The said order is part of the original records seen by the Court. It mentions about the connivance of the petitioner with the consumers and other Officers/employees of the Corporation to facilitate such theft. Accordingly, censure entry was awarded to him as punishment. Moreover, the Committee also took into consideration the efforts of the petitioner to somehow remain posted in Meerut Division for as long as 14 years, though Meerut was his hometown. The original records contain a censure entry dated 03.10.1983 regarding exertion of extra official pressure by the petitioner on the Board in matters relating to his transfer and posting in flagrant violation of Rule 27 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. This censure entry is of 1983 and has not been specifically referred by the Screening Committee though it has mentioned about efforts by the petitioner to remain posted in Meerut Division in the context of censure entry of 1998, therefore, the Court does not consider it any further. The Screening Committee also took into consideration the censure entry dated 27.12.2005.

14. As regards punishment order dated 04.05.2005, as already noticed, the same has already been quashed on 28.01.2014, but was in force when petitioner was considered for compulsory retirement.

15. The petitioner was superseded in the matter of his promotion to the Superintending Engineer on 28.07.2006, once.

16. Thus, there was material before the Screening Committee based on which it formed an opinion and recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner to the competent authority. The matter was placed before the Chairman with the noting that he should consider the entire material on record appropriately and should apply his mind fully and thereafter arrive at his satisfaction as per his wisdom in the matter pertaining to the petitioner's compulsory retirement and take a decision in public interest. The Chairman accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee, accordingly the order dated 25.03.2008 was passed which was challenged by the petitioner after almost 7 years in the circumstances already referred hereinabove.

17. Some mala fides have been alleged against the then Managing Director who has not been made a party in person, therefore, the same cannot be considered.

18. As already stated, merely because one of the punishment orders was quashed by the Tribunal, resulting in reduction of score from 80 to 40 also does not persuade the Court to interfere in the matter as the scoring of marks was only for the purposes of punishment whereas for the purposes of compulsory retirement, the entire career and the entire service records of the petitioner are to be seen.

19. It is not a case where there is no objective material to sustain the subjective decision taken by the competent authority. Based on the censure entries and the recitals contained therein as also the assessment of the work, skill and capabilities and also utility of the Officer for the Corporation, the Screening Committee recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner which was accepted by the Chairman.

20. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. As already stated, there are no mala fides or at least the same cannot be considered for the reasons already given hereinabove. It is also not a case where it could be said that there is any perversity in the decision as even after quashing of the punishment order dated 04.05.2005, the competent authority has considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same stating that there was no reason to take any other view in the matter. This has been communicated to the petitioner by the order dated 22.09.2015. The decision cannot be said to be arbitrary.

21. In view of the above, the petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

22. The original records retained by the Court be returned by the Bench Secretary to Mr. Nirav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

[Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 19.12.2022

Santosh/-