SATYENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been directed against the order dated 2nd July, 2000 whereby the petitioner has been finally ordered to retire compulsorily from service. Needless to mention that this course of action was resorted to by the disciplinary authority because of his serious lapses which warranted his forcible retirement from services. Whatever may be the grounds, this has to be examined and scrutinised by this Court. The scope of enquiry in this matter is very short.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 2nd July, 2000 is bad in law inasmuch as, without deciding and considering his representation made pursuant to the provisional order of retirement served in the month of March, 2000 was not considered. Without consideration of such representation, passing of final impugned order is in complete breach of the principles of natural justice. He submits that his representation indeed has been considered after the order was passed by the order dated 17th July, 2002. According to him this disposal is a most decisional one and it should have been done before the final order was passed.

(3.) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioner for the reasons that the Rule governing the services of the petitioner does not enjoin any power to hear or for that matter any right to be heard before the final order of compulsory retirement is passed. In this connection, I would set out the relevant fundamental Rules which is annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition: