Read Time: 05 minutes

Dismissing a plea filed by a Zila Panchayat Administrative Officer assailing compulsory retirement order against him, the Allahabad High Court said that "the employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service."

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh stated that "if on consideration of the service record, it is found that the work of an employee has not been up to the mark or he has become 'dead wood' for the organization", the same can be weeded out through compulsory retirement.

In the context of present case, Court found that the screening committee constituted for assessing the service record of Class-III and Class-IV employees of Zila Panchayat, Hardoi had recorded that the officer was indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, and scheduled caste people.

Court also noted that it was evident from the officer's pleadings that he had approached the writ court for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction by adopting falsehood, misrepresentation and concealing material facts of the case. 

Therefore, stating that the officer had not approached the court with clean hands, court dismissed his plea with cost amounting to rupees 25,000.

One Mohammed Naseem Ali was compulsorily retired from service in September 2020. Challenging this order before the high court, as the same was passed by the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Ali's counsel had contended the compulsory retirement order had been imposed as a punitive measure. 

He had alleged in the meeting of the Board of Zila Panchayat, in which a resolution pertaining to Ali's compulsory retirement was approved, neither the agenda of compulsory retirement of Ali was published nor served on any members of the Zila Panchayat as per the statutory requirements. Therefore, he had claimed that the resolution of the Board of the Zila Panchayat regarding Ali's compulsory retirement was not sustainable in law. 

Interestingly, alleging that no screening committee had been constituted to assess his performance, Ali had earlier obtained a stay on the compulsory retirement order from the high court as an interim measure in October 2020. 

However, on the last date of hearing, the court was apprised that Ali's petition had been filed on falsehood and Ali had obtained the interim order stay by stating wholly incorrect and false facts. Court was further informed that a screening committee was indeed formed that had made a recommendation in July 2020 for Ali's compulsory retirement. 

Taking these revelations into account, Court concluded that Ali, who had been held a wholly useless employee with behavioral flaws, was trying to abuse the process of the Court and therefore, rejected his plea. 

Case Title: Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P.