G P DEWANGON Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-3-1990 (Annexure-P-1) by which punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of the order dated 25-7-1994 by which appeal preferred by him against the order of punishment has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger on 15-4-1958. In 1968-69 the petitioner was posted in Range Office, Katni. By order dated 22-6-1969 the petitioner was transferred to working plan Sheopur and was relieved on the same date. The petitioner submitted representation against the aforesaid order of transfer. The order of transfer dated 22-6-1969 was stayed and the petitioner worked in Katni till 8-8-1969. However, vide order dated 30-7-1969 the petitioner was transferred from Katni to Kalpi District Mandla. In compliance of the aforesaid order the petitioner joined at Kalpi on 9-8-1969. However, charge was not given to him by the Range Officer, therefore, the petitioner was posted as Officer on Special Duty at Kalpi vide order dated 25-8-1969.

(3.) Thereafter, by an order dated 4-7-1970 the petitioner was transferred from Kalpi to Bastar circle. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner submitted a representation and stated that no salary and allowance has been paid to him. The order of transfer dated 4-7-1970 was stayed by order dated 19-7-1971 (Annexure-P-11) with a direction that the salary of the petitioner may be paid to him. However, without making payment of salary to the petitioner, he was again transferred vide order dated 16-5-1973 to Bilaspur. However, the Last Pay Certificate (L.P.C.) was also not issued. The petitioner submitted representations (Annexures-P-13 to P-16) and pointed out that neither the petitioner has been neither relieved nor salary has been paid to him. The representations submitted by the petitioner failed to evoke any response.