JAGAT NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of compulsory retirement from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba against the petitioner, a Police Constable, in exercise of powers under Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Financial Handbook, Volume II (Part II-IV). The order impugned says that the Superintendent of Police is the Appointing Authority for the post held by the petitioner and that in public interest, he directs that the petitioner stands retired from service with effect from the date of the impugned order in the forenoon. The impugned order further says that the petitioner would be entitled to receive a sum equivalent to three months of his salary together with all allowances due, computed on the basis of his emoluments that he was receiving immediately before the date of retirement. The petitioner has come up challenging the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement dtd. 28/3/2018, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the impugned order'.

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that his date of birth is 1/5/1963 and he is aged 55 years. He is physically and medically fit to perform his duties. The petitioner has been performing his duties with extraordinary devotion and integrity. His service record is unblemished and exemplary. The petitioner is an honest and diligent policeman. He has always discharged his duties with utmost responsibility and worked to the full satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on 20/2/1984 in the Uttar Pradesh Police, and after completing his training, has been discharging his duties regularly, until the date of the impugned order.

(3.) Pending admission, parties have exchanged affidavits in compliance with the orders of this Court dtd. 19/4/2018 - a counter on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and a rejoinder to it. A personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba was also required to be filed on an ancillary issue. That affidavit was filed and the matter dealt with. By an order dtd. 10/6/2022, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded on that day.