25 Feb 2022 9:14 AM GMT
Stressing that the employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a Government employee who was found to be indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, and scheduled caste people.The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also observed that an employer is entitled...
Stressing that the employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a Government employee who was found to be indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, and scheduled caste people.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also observed that an employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service if on consideration of the service record, it is found that the work of such an employee has not been upto the mark or he has become 'dead wood' for the organization.
The case in brief
The petitioner, Mohammed Naseem Ali was working as an Administrative Officer in Zila Panchayat, Hardoi. He was compulsorily retired from service in September 2020 [order was made by Chairman of the Zila Panchayat] and therefore, challenging this order, he had moved to the High Court.
It was the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that neither the Agenda of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was published nor served on any members of the Zila Panchayat and, therefore, it was argued, the resolution of the Board of the Zila Panchayat regarding his compulsory retirement was wholly not sustainable in law.
It was also contended that no screening committee was constituted to assess his service record for taking a decision of his retirement compulsorily from services. It was lastly submitted that since the compulsory retirement order had been imposed as a punitive measure, the same was liable to be set aside.
In October 2020, hearing this case, the Allahabad High Court had stayed this compulsory retirement order as an interim measure.
Now, last week, during the course of the hearing, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petition had been filed on falsehood, and in fact, by stating wholly incorrect and false averments of facts, the petitioner had obtained the interim order from the HC in October 2020.
It was further argued that the petitioner had concealed the material fact that a screening committee was indeed formed that had made a recommendation in July 2020 considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement.
At the outset, taking into account the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the Court noted that the petitioner's work and conduct had been much wanting and that he was given warnings, he had been habitual of flouting the orders of superior authorities, he had been given warning several times, but he did not care about those warnings and showed his negligence in the discharge of duty.
The Court also took into account the fact that there several serious complaints by several employees were made against the petitioner about his indecent behavior with the colleagues, including the female employees.
Significantly, the Court further ook note of the recommendation of the screening committee wherein it had recorded that the petitioner was indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females and scheduled caste people, malignant and wholly useless employee and, the same had been confirmed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
In view of this, the Court concluded that the petitioner had approached the Court for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction by adopting falsehood, misrepresentation, and concealing the material facts and, thus, the Court held that he had abused the process of the Court and had obtained the interim order on the basis of false and misleading averments and concealing material facts.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) was imposed upon the petitioner to be deposited in the 'Army Battle Casualties Welfare Fund' within a period of four weeks.
Case title - Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And Ors.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Click Here To Read/Download Order