JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.4.2005 by which he has been compulsorily retired from service passed by the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Etah in exercise of powers under amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, Part ‘C. The order is as under : Þvknsk foÙkh; gLr iqfLrdk [k.M&2 Hkkx 2 ls 4 rd esa fn;s x;s v/;kof/kd lakks/ku Q.MkesUVy :y 56 ds [k.M ¼lh½ esa iznÙk vf/kdkjksas dk iz;ksx djds eSa v/;{k ftyk iapk;r ,Vk ¼fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh½ }kjk yksd fgr esa Jh dkSky fdkksj ikBd] jktLo v/kh{kd ftyk iapk;r] ,Vk dks bl vknsk ds tkjh gksus ds fnukad ds vijkUg ls vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fÙk fd;k tkrk gS rFkk 3 ekg dh vof/k ds fy, Jh ikBd mlh nj ij vius osru vkSj HkÙks] ;fn dksbZ gks] dh /kujkfk ds cjkcj /ku ds nkosnkj gksus ds gdnkj gksaxs] ftl nj ij og viuh lsok fuo`fÙk ls Bhd iwoZ ik jgs FksA g0 ¼eUtw nsoh½ fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh v/;{k ftyk iapk;r ,Vkß 3. The petitioner was posted as Revenue Superintendent under the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Etah. It is claimed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.7.46 and he would have retired from service in July 2006 on attaining the age of 60 years. It is stated that the order impugned is illegal, arbitrary and has been passed with ulterior motives for reasons that the petitioner was promoted as Revenue Inspector 4.5.1979 while one Sri Siya Ram, who is junior to the petitioner, was promoted on the same post on 1.4.1980. Sri Siya Ram was thereafter promoted to the post of Tax Officer in July 1987 and the representation of the petitioner was stonewalled by the respondents. It is alleged that on the aforesaid background, the impugned order has been passed without his case having been considered by the Screening Committee, which was never constituted. It is urged that there was no complaint against the petitioner either from public or from any superior authority but he has been compulsorily retired without any basis and that there does not exist any ground for passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. 4. It is urged that there was no complaint against the petitioner either from public or from any superior authority but he has been compulsorily retired without any basis and that there does not exist any ground for passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further urged that though it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, but there exists nothing against the petitioner that he has ill health or he lost the required standard of efficiency, competency or credibility etc. He is neither inefficient not a corrupt employee, as such, the impugned order being unreasonable, mala fide and having been passed in colourable exercise of powers, deserves to be quashed by this Court. 5. As regards mala fide it is vehemently urged by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 is wife of Sri Ajai Yadav, who is also a member of the Zila Panchayat Etah. She is supporter of Samajwadi Party and the petitioner has been victimized as he supported the candidate of another political party who was being opposed by her. 6. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service on the basis of an enquiry report dated 21.3.2005 submitted by Sri M. Rahman, Inquiry Officer and Financial Advisor, Zila Panchayat, Etah, which has been appended as Annexure C.A.1 to the Counter Affidavit. In support of his contention that an employee can be compulsorily retired if his continuance in service affects ‘public interest’, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC-529 and Division Bench decisions of this Court in Vijai Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(2) ESC 794 (All); Union of India and others v. Dr. R.C. Mishra and another, (2001)1 UPLBEC 18 ; and Shamsher Singh v. General Manager (Personnel), Punjab and Sind Bank and others, 2001(1) ESC 297 (All) (DB). 7. R.C. Mishra and another, (2001)1 UPLBEC 18 ; and Shamsher Singh v. General Manager (Personnel), Punjab and Sind Bank and others, 2001(1) ESC 297 (All) (DB). 7. The ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired pursuant to the enquiry report, aforesaid, due to the reason that he intentionally made certain endorsement on a file of Sri Hemant Singh (driver) and got the order dated 18.3.2004 passed for appointment on regular basis who was working on daily wage basis. A perusal of the enquiry report does not show as to how the enquiry was got initiated; how Sri M. Rahman was appointed as enquiry officer and what were the charges against the petitioner etc. To the contrary, it appears from record that the aforesaid enquiry report has been prepared only for the purpose of this case as there is neither any mention therein that any preliminary enquiry was conducted nor there is any whisper about framing of any charge against the petitioner. There is no mention of the fact in it that the petitioner was ever afforded any opportunity for producing any witness in his defence or for hearing. The aforesaid enquiry report, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 8. The counsel for the respondents has candidly admitted that except the enquiry report, there is no material, whatsoever, against the petitioner for retiring him in ‘public interest’. 9. Had the petitioner committed any misconduct, it was open for the respondents to have initiated regular enquiry and awarded punishment proportionate to the charges in accordance with law but it cannot be basis or retiring him compulsorily. It is a punishment and he has been victimized. The allegations made by him in the writ petition show that he has been made a scapegoat and submissions of mala fide have force. [See 2005(9) SCC 748 ]. 10. The case of the petitioner was also never considered by the Screening Committee. Thus, the ratio laid down in the above cases does not apply, The decisions relied upon by counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.4.2005 passed by respondent No. 2 and contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.4.2005 passed by respondent No. 2 and contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to continuity in service and all consequential benefits, including back wages. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only to the petitioner as costs for making the employee to run from pillar to post without any justifiable cause. Petition Allowed. ————