LAWS(ALL)-1999-4-46

HIRA LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 16, 1999
HIRA LAL SRIVASTAVA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In both these writ petitions, common question of law and fact are involved. Parties are also the same, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this Common judgment.

(2.) BY means of this Writ Petition No. 1676 (SS)of 1993, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-1-1993 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Lekhpal by the Settlement Of ficer Consolidation, Faizabad. Prayer for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for a direction la the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and pay his salary till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation, has also been made. Writ Petition No. 4633 (SS) of 1998 has been filed challenging the validity of order dated 18-11-1989 whereby petitioner was awarded minor punishment of permanent stoppage of one annual in crement. In the said petition, prayer for writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner with effect from 26-4-1987 when he was suspended from service, has also been made.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner worked with utmost sincerity, honesty and with full devotion, he had unbkimishcd service record, was never awarded adverse entry, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to retire him from service before he attained the age of super annuation. The petitioner, according to him, had right to continue in service till he attained the age of retirement. Order of compulsory retirement, according to him, was violative to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as it amounted to an order of punishment. The said order having been passed without fol lowing the procedure prescribed under law, was liable to be quashed. According to him, even minor punishment of stoppage of increment permanently for one year could not be awarded to the petitioner. It was further urged that on the record, there was no material on the basis of which the competent authority formed opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner from service.