JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner, Jagdish Singh, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.2005, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, issued by the District Magistrate, Aligarh compulsorily retiring the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (hereinafter referred to as 'FR-56') from the post of Revenue Inspector.

(2.) IN brief, the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that his date of birth is 31.1.1951 and after passing high school in the year 1968 from Board of High School and INtermediate, U. P., Allahabad, he was selected and appointed on the post of Lekhpal on 23.6.1973 and was posted in Tahasil Sadar, District Etah. The appointing authority of the petitioner was Collector. He was promoted on the post of Supervisor Kanoongo (Revenue INspector) on 25.5.2005 after passing departmental examination. His service record is exemplary, unblemished and no adverse entry has been communicated to him, but a censure awarded on 27.4.2002, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, where against he has filed a representation before the competent authority, i.e., Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra on 6.5.2002, which has not been decided so far. He attained the age of 54 years in the year 2005 and in an arbitrary manner, the respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement in exercise of powers under FR-56. The order of compulsory retirement is assailed on the ground of being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of INdia. It is said that the petitioner has not been given any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and has also been passed mala fide, in gross abuse and misuse of process of law resulting in substantial failure and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. The only adverse material available against the petitioner was the censure dated 27.4.2002 whereagainst representation before the competent authority was pending and therefore, the same could not have been taking into account, yet the impugned order has been passed, which is only illegally based on no material.

(3.) I have heard Sri B. B. Paul, assisted by Sri A. P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. From the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, following questions require consideration in this case :