# Sidheswar Mishra v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 482
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58112 of 2005
- **Bench:** D.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sidheswar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40905
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Ranjit Saxena
Sri R.D. Khare

U.P. State Electricity Board Employees
(Retirement)
Regulations
1975Regulation 2 (b) and 2 (C) (i)-2ACompulsory Retirement-based on uncommunicated
bad
entry-more
than
three decades-can not be sufficient to
assume that public interest requires the
retirement of petitioner compulsorilyheld-arbitrary not based on any relevant
materials-quashed.

Held: Para 6

Assuming that there is one bad entry of
1998-99 but that has also not been
communicated to him. It is aptly said
one swallow does not bring a spring. One
bad entry in more than three decades of
service cannot be said to be sufficient to
hold that the public interest requires the
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
From the service record, it is also
apparent that throughout his service, the
integrity of the petitioner was never
doubted. The counsel for the respondent
has failed to point out any material
which could show that the conduct or
the method of working of the petitioner
was adversely telling up on the efficiency
of the unit where he was working or of
the corporation at large. Therefore, the
exercise
of
power
of
compulsory
retirement appears to be arbitrary and
not based on any relevant material.
Therefore, it has to be quashed.

## Text

482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
State also makes out a case for grant of an
Arm's license to the petitioner.

9. In view of the above, the order
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad refusing to grant Arm's license
to the petitioner suffers from error of law
apparent on the face of record and the
order passed by the Appellate authority
affirming the same was also passed
without application of mind, though the
Appellate authority mentioned in its order
that the petitioner is a businessman and
requires an Arm's license for protection of
his life and property.

10. In view of the discussions made
above, writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
9.10.2002 and 4.3.2002 passed by the
District Magistrate, Allahabad and the
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad are hereby quashed. The matter
is
remanded
back
to
the
District
Magistrate, Allahabad to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law in the light
of the observations made by this Court in
this judgment.

11. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58112 of 2005

Sidheswar Mishra

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Nath Tripathi
Sri S.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ranjit Saxena
Sri R.D. Khare

U.P. State Electricity Board Employees
(Retirement)
Regulations
1975Regulation 2 (b) and 2 (C) (i)-2ACompulsory Retirement-based on uncommunicated
bad
entry-more
than
three decades-can not be sufficient to
assume that public interest requires the
retirement of petitioner compulsorilyheld-arbitrary not based on any relevant
materials-quashed.

Held: Para 6

Assuming that there is one bad entry of
1998-99 but that has also not been
communicated to him. It is aptly said
one swallow does not bring a spring. One
bad entry in more than three decades of
service cannot be said to be sufficient to
hold that the public interest requires the
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
From the service record, it is also
apparent that throughout his service, the
integrity of the petitioner was never
doubted. The counsel for the respondent
has failed to point out any material
which could show that the conduct or
the method of working of the petitioner
was adversely telling up on the efficiency
of the unit where he was working or of
the corporation at large. Therefore, the
exercise
of
power
of
compulsory
retirement appears to be arbitrary and
not based on any relevant material.
Therefore, it has to be quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Ranjeet Saxena for the
respondent Corporation.
2 All] Sidheswar Mishra V. State of U.P. and another
483
2. This petition is directed against an
order of compulsory retirement dated
3.8.2005.

3. The petitioner was working as a
Junior Engineer in the respondents
Corporation and by the impugned order
dated 3.8.2005 he has been compulsory
retired in view of U.P. State Electricity
Board
Employees
(Retirement)
Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Regulations').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has urged that neither any adverse entry
was ever communicated to him nor any
enquiry or charge sheet was ever served
on him. He has also urged that there was
no adverse material available before the
respondents to have taken action under
Regulation 2 (b) and 2 (c)(i). Regulation
2-A of the said Regulations provides as
under.

''In order to be satisfied whether it
will be in the public interest to require a
Boards servant to retire under Clause (b)
the appointing authority or any authority
to whom the appointing authority is
subordinate may take into consideration
any material relating to the efficiency and
suitability of the Boards servant including
Service Records, Annual Confidential
Reports, any report of the Vigilance
Establishment or any other Inquiry
Report and other relevant material."

5. A perusal of the aforesaid
Regulation shows that the Appointing
Authority has to take into consideration
any material relating to the efficiency and
suitability of the incumbent including any
report of vigilance or any other enquiry
report to decide whether it is necessary to
compulsorily retire the incumbent. There
are only two material disclosed in the
counter
affidavit.
One
is
that
miscellaneous advance amounting to
Rs.5,35,173/- was neither deposited by'
the petitioner nor accounted for. The other
is an alleged bad entry for the year 199899.

6. In the writ petition itself the
petitioner has annexed a copy of the
report dated 30.9.2004 showing that an
amount of Rs.5,03,477/- had already been
accounted for through vouchers and
verified in form no. A-9 of March 2000
but
for
the
remaining
amount
of
Rs.31,696/-, the Deputy General Manager
vide his letter dated 7.1.2005, which is
Annexure-6 to the petition had declared
that it is being recovered from the
petitioner through his salary. These
allegations or the annexures have not been
denied specifically. Once the amount had
already been duly accounted for and
explained, it could not be said by any
stretch of imagination that it reflected
upon the efficiency or suitability of the
petitioner. The record relating to the
award of bad entry for 1998-99 has not
been annexed with the counter affidavit.
The award of the bad entry and its
communication has been specifically
denied
in
the
rejoinder
affidavit.
However,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has produced some of the
service record of the petitioner. There is
an order mentioning about bad entry
against the petitioner but neither in the
Annual Confidential Report of 1998-99 it
is reflected nor its communication is
demonstrated by any material on record.
To the contrary the service record shows
that right from 1992-93 till 1996-97 the
petitioner was awarded "Very Good" or
"Good"
entries.
No·
service
record
subsequent to 1998 has been produced to
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
justify the action against the petitioner.
Assuming that there is one bad entry of
1998-99 but that has also not been
communicated to him. It is aptly said one
swallow does not bring a spring. One bad
entry in more than three decades of
service cannot be said to be sufficient to
hold that the public interest requires the
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
From the service record, it is also
apparent that throughout his service, the
integrity of the petitioner was never
doubted. The counsel for the respondent
has failed to point out any material which
could show that the conduct or the
method of working of the petitioner was
adversely telling up on the efficiency of
the unit where he was working or of the
corporation at large. Therefore, the
exercise
of
power
of
compulsory
retirement appears to be arbitrary and not
based on any relevant material. Therefore,
it has to be quashed.

7. For the reasons above, this
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order dated 3.8.2005 is hereby
quashed and it is directed that the
petitioner shall be treated to be in service
till the date of his actual retirement and
will also be entitled to consequential
benefits. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.7662 of 2004

Smt. Yasoda

...Petitioner.
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Naveen Yadav
Sri Y.S. Bohra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-299Power
of
Magistrate-when
accused
absconded-even
after
82
and
83,
proceeding
and
the
closure
of
proceeding
under
section-299-if
magistrate
gets
information
about
existence of any immovable propertyMagistrate
should
pass
attachment
order-inaction on the part of concerned
Magistrate despite of the particulars
given by the informant/complainantcourt expressed its great concern.

Held: Para 3

Learned Magistrate is also directed to
proceed,
under
Section
299
Cr.P.C.
against the accused, if he is satisfied that
there is no immediate prospects of
arresting the accused after passing a
detailed order. Even if while proceeding,
under Section 299 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate
gets information from the police or
complainant-informant about existence
of
any
moveable
and
immoveable
property of the accused, there is no
impediment in issuing as attachment
order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. In this case, F.I.R was registered
on 7.5.2003 under Section 302 I. P. C.
and the charge sheet was submitted on
1.6.2003. The accused have not been
arrested so far in collusion with the
Investigating Officer as alleged in the writ
petition. The C.J.M. concerned has also
not taken effective steps for arresting the
accused persons despite several orders,
passed by this Court. It has been
mentioned
¥
in
the
supplementary