BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner was selected as a Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police on 7-3-1974. By an order dated 7-2- 2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, Bareilly, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to work till completing the age of retirement and to pay him salary and other emoluments admissible to him.

(2.) I have heard Sri R. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(3.) IN paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been stated that "the service career of the petitioner is found to be satisfactory and the entire service role of the petitioner contains good, very good and excellent also ". IN reply to the said paragraph of the writ petition, it has merely been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that such averments are wrong and denied. No explanation as to why the said averments are wrong, has been given in the counter-affidavit. It has also not been stated that there has ever been any adverse entry awarded to the petitioner. IN paragraph 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that". . . . . . . the impugned order has been passed without taking into account the entire relevant material, history and service record of the petitioner. The petitioner is quite physically fit to discharge the duties assigned to the post of Sub-INspector of Police and from the service record of the petitioner, no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material about the retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from perversity". IN paragraph 12 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that "there is nothing adverse in service record of the petitioner which may entitle the respondents to pass the impugned order in the event when the petitioner has been finally exonerated by the Vigilance Department. " IN paragraph 13 of the writ petition it has been averred that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order and that the subjective satisfaction of the respondents must be verified by independent material and the service record of the petitioner.