Allahabad HC quashes government order terminating DSP from service

Later, he was promoted to the post of inspector and thereafter to the post of DSP.The screening committee of the government had submitted its report on November 1, 2019, wherein it had recommended that the petitioner should not be continued in service in the public interest and therefore, he has to be compulsory retired.

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a 2019 order issued by the state government by which a deputy superintendent of police was ''compulsorily retired'' from his post.

Ratan Kumar Yadav was removed from the post of DSP in pursuance of the recommendation of a screening committee stating that Yadav should be ''compulsory retired'' in order to maintain the efficiency in the state police service.

While quashing the order, the high court also directed the state government to issue another order for petitioner's joining within three weeks.

Allowing the writ petition filed by Yadav, Justice Prakash Padia observed, ''It is clear that the screening committee has not recorded any subjective satisfaction and in vague term has recorded the findings that the petitioner is fit for compulsory retirement and that too without considering individual cases of the government servant.'' ''The report further established that the service record has not at all been considered by the respondent while passing the order of compulsory retirement. The order dated November 7, 2019 directing for compulsory retirement further contains the detail of earlier punishment orders. Thus, this order (November 7) casts stigma and also amounts to double punishment,'' the court said in its ruling passed last week. As such, the state government's order is ''not sustainable, being contrary to law'' and is hereby quashed, the court said.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of sub-inspector in the Uttar Pradesh Police. Later, he was promoted to the post of inspector and thereafter to the post of DSP.

The screening committee of the government had submitted its report on November 1, 2019, wherein it had recommended that the petitioner should not be continued in service in the public interest and therefore, he has to be compulsory retired.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)