MAHESH CHAND JINDAL Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an Additional Chief Engineer in the Irrigation Department. By an order dated 9th July 1982 (Annexure 19 to the petition) he has been compulsorily retired on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice in accordance with Fundamental Rule No. 56(c) of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, parts 2 to 4. The petitioner has challenged this order by means of this writ petition.

(2.) The petition has been admitted only to-day, but on the very first day when the petition was presented. namely, 26-8-1982. the Bench had indicated that the opposite parties should file a counter-affidavit so that the petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself, as laid down in the second proviso to R. 2 of Chap. XXII of the Rules of Court. Thereafter further time had been taken by the learned Chief Standing Counsel on 8-9-1982 to file a detailed counter-affidavit but the same has not been filed. Only a short counter- affidavit was filed earlier in regard to para. 50 of the petition. Accordingly arguments on merits have been heard.

(3.) The petitioner was last promoted in an ad hoc capacity to the post of the Additional Chief Engineer. In the same year he was also confirmed as Superintending Engineer. However, on certain complaints made against him an inquiry through vigilance Department was conducted subsequently. The petitioner was also interrogated during that preliminary inquiry. The inquiry was, however, of a secret and preliminary nature and it was neither investigation under the Cr. P. C. nor a formal disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner says that he gave his replies to the investigating officer which ought to have satisfied the authorities. He also contends that allegations against him pertained to technical details of the work relating to the department and accordingly he had suggested that some high technical officers should be associated with the inquiry. This request was not acceded to. Instead, according to para. 50 of the petition, a decision was taken to "punish" him. This punishment decided upon was to be twofold, namely, that he should be compulsorily retired, and further, that such deductions as may be necessary may be made from the pension of the petitioner under para. 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations. It was in pursuance of this decision that the order of compulsory retirement was passed. As such the order was penal. This allegation contained in para. 50 has not been substantially controverted in the aforesaid counter- affidavit.