BADRI NATH OJHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THROUGH the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 18th of May, 2006.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 30.9.1970 on the post of Constable Civil Police and from the date of his initial appointment he rendered continuous service with utmost sincerity and satisfaction to his senior officers till the date of his compulsory retirement dated 18th of May, 2006. It is stated that the appointing authority has issued the order of compulsory retirement, pursuant to the direction of the Superior Authorities, who are the opposite parties 2 and 3, thus, it suffers from bias attitude of the opposite parties. It is further stated that the compulsory retirement is made to the persons, who are useless for employment, but the petitioner has rendered the services obediently and with full dedication. It is further stated that since the order has been passed at the dictate of Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police, therefore, it is unsustainable as the Deputy Inspector General of Police is the appellate authority and the Inspector General of Police is the revisional authority, who could not exercise the power to punish an employee.