# Thakur Prasad Dubey v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1118
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22603 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/thakur-prasad-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40747
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Compulsory Retirement-on the basis of
single adverse entry-held-single adverse
entry
can
not
be
the
basis
for
punishment of compulsory retirementeven the lesser recovery depends upon
several factors of formers-unless the
finding about negligence in duty-can not
be termed as dead wood for the
department-Order
impugned
quashed
with all consequential benefit.

Held: Para 7

Petitioner was retired in the public
interest.
This
expression
has
been
explained
in
series
of
judgment.
Reference can be made to the judgment
given in case of S. Ramachandra Raju V.
State of Orissa reported in (1994) Vol.
28, Administrative Tribunal Cases 443 in
which Apex Court has held that order of
compulsory retirement passed on one
adverse entry followed by subsequent
report makes the exercise of power
arbitrary.
Case law discussed:
2000 (1) UPLBEC-582
2006 (2) ESC-1491
AIR 2002 SC-1345
1994 (2) 28 ATC-443

## Text

1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
permitted to discharge their duties as
sweeper and the minimum of the pay
scale be paid to them, till matter of
regularization
is
not
finalized.
Consequently, both the writ petitions are
allowed.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22603 of 2001

Thakur Prasad Dubey

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Alam
Sarita Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Compulsory Retirement-on the basis of
single adverse entry-held-single adverse
entry
can
not
be
the
basis
for
punishment of compulsory retirementeven the lesser recovery depends upon
several factors of formers-unless the
finding about negligence in duty-can not
be termed as dead wood for the
department-Order
impugned
quashed
with all consequential benefit.

Held: Para 7

Petitioner was retired in the public
interest.
This
expression
has
been
explained
in
series
of
judgment.
Reference can be made to the judgment
given in case of S. Ramachandra Raju V.
State of Orissa reported in (1994) Vol.
28, Administrative Tribunal Cases 443 in
which Apex Court has held that order of
compulsory retirement passed on one
adverse entry followed by subsequent
report makes the exercise of power
arbitrary.
Case law discussed:
2000 (1) UPLBEC-582
2006 (2) ESC-1491
AIR 2002 SC-1345
1994 (2) 28 ATC-443

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh)

1. Heard Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned
Advocate in support of this petition and
Sri Alam, learned Standing Counsel in
opposition thereof.

2. Challenge in this petition is the
order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the
respondent
no.
2,
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate, Harraiya, District Basti by
which petitioner has been directed to be
compulsory retired.

3. Petitioner claims to have been
appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in
the year 1974 and on account of his
continuous satisfactory service he was
regularised in the year 1985 and it is said
that on account of their being less
recovery from the target by the petitioner
an adverse entry was given in the year
1993. It is thereafter in the year 2000, in
view of the fact that again petitioner could
get recovered amount to a tune of about
17,000/-
in
place
of
Rs.30,000/=
petitioner was placed under suspension
which was stayed by this Court but
thereafter petitioner has been directed to
be compulsory retired by the impugned
order dated 31.5.2001 and thus this
petition before this court.
3 All] Thakur Prasad Dubey V. State of U.P. and others
1119

4. Submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that even if the charge
against the petitioner is accepted to be
correct that in the year 1993 there was
adverse entry in respect to charge of less
recovery and in the year 2000 he was
placed under suspension for the same
reason that cannot be made a ground for
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
Submission is that several other Seasonal
Collection Amins who got even lessor
amount against the recovery target where
although placed under suspension but
they were reinstated but the petitioner
although having realized even more
amount has been dealt with in the manner
as has been impugned in this petition.
Details in this respect has been given in
the writ petition. In support of the
aforesaid submission, reliance has been
placed on the judgment given in case of
Devi
Saran
Sharma
Vs.
District
Magistrate/Zila Adhikari, Meerut and
others reported in (2000) 1 UPLBEC 582
and the judgment of this court given in
case of Chandar Prasad Verma Vs. State
of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2)
ESC. 1491.

5. In response to the aforesaid Sri
Alam learned Standing Counsel submits
that even on the basis of a single adverse
entry petitioner can be directed to be
compulsory retired. In this connection
reliance has been placed on the decision
given by the Apex Court in case of State
of U.P. and others Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain
reported in AIR 2002 SC. 1345.

6. There appears to be no dispute
about the fact that petitioner was initially
appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in
the year 1974 and on completion of
satisfactory service in the year 1985 he
was
given
regular
appointment
as
Collection Amin. It is said that on account
of less recovery to the targeted amount he
was placed under suspension but that
order was stayed by this court. In fact
recovery was to be effected from the
farmers and against the targeted amount
of Rs.30,000/= he recovered an amount of
Rs.17,393.80. It is said that in the report
of the enquiry officer it is mentioned that
payment to the farmers about their sugar
cane was not started and farmers informed
that as soon as payment of their sugar
cane is started they will immediately
make payment upon which targeted
amount of the petitioner would have also
complete. In the counter affidavit this
appears to be the sole ground for directing
the petitioner to be compulsory retired.
Although Apex Court in the judgment
given in case of State of U.P. Vs. Vijay
Kumar Jain (Supra) has said that on the
basis of a single adverse entry the order of
compulsory retirement can be passed but
that happened to be a case of serious
adverse entry relating to integrity of a
government servant. This court in case of
Ravi Saran Sharma (Supra has clearly
held that exercise of power to compulsory
retire a government servant is to be
exercised in public interest as object is to
weed out dead wood and it should appear
from the record that continuance of that
employee in the service became of no use
and if it is not established then action is to
be held as arbitrary and punitive. The
same view has been expressed by this
court in case of Chandar Prasad Verma
(Supra) in which it has been said that
power to compulsory retire a government
servant cannot be used to punish a
government servant. So far case in hand is
concerned if there was less recovery from
the targeted amount there may be various
factors as has been stated by the petitioner
and even that apppears from the enquiry
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
officer's report. Lastly, it can be ---- that
it has been held by this court that lesser
amount of recovery cannot be said to be a
ground for removing a government
servant from service unless something
further is established against his integrity
and conduct. Petitioner has submitted that
several other Collection Amins having
recovered even lessor amount than the
petitioner has been earlier placed under
suspension but have been reinstated and
therefore on these facts it cannot be said
that impugned order of compulsory
retirement of the petitioner is in the public
interest
and
petitioner
has
been
established to be dead wood and of no use
in the department.

7. Petitioner was retired in the public
interest.
This
expression
has
been
explained
in
series
of
judgment.
Reference can be made to the judgment
given in case of S. Ramachandra Raju V.
State of Orissa reported in (1994) Vol. 28,
Administrative Tribunal Cases 443 in
which Apex Court has held that order of
compulsory retirement passed on one
adverse entry followed by subsequent
report makes the exercise of power
arbitrary.

8. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, this writ petition succeeds
and is allowed. The order dated 31.5.2001
passed
by
the
respondent
no.
2
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby
quashed
and
petitioner
is
to
get
consequential benefits. Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26520 of 2006

Bhuleliya and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Additional
Collector(Land/Revenue)/
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ghazipur and another
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.N. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajesh Yadav
Sri K.R. Sirohi

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
Section 52-A(1)-Chak Road and Chak
Nali-after notification under section 52-
can be passed only by the collector and
not by the A.D.M./D.D.C.-held-without
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 8

This Court is of the view that under
Section 52-A of the U.P.C.H. Act after
notification under Section 52 of the
U.P.C.H. Act, the Collector may, if he is of
the opinion that there exists no provision
or inadequate provision of Chak Roads or
Chak Guls in the unit and shall, if a
representation in that behalf by not less
than ten per cent of the total number of
tenure-holders is made to him within six
months of the said commencement,
proceed to take action under sub-Section
(2), anything to the contrary contained
in
section
52
notwithstanding.
The
impugned order was not passed by the
Collector, but it was passed by the
Additional
District
Magistrate/Deputy
Director of Consolidation. The impugned
order is without jurisdiction as such
orders could only be passed by the