S K TANEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written Statement has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents has been unable to satisfy us against the well settled principle of law that a person during suspension cannot be compulsorily retired. Admittedly, the petitioner- has been retired during his suspension, Thus, the impugned order of retirement during suspension cannot be sustained. The above observations of ours are supported by Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana and another,1993 3 RSJ 526.

(2.) As a natural consequence, impugned order Annexure P-3 retiring the petitioner at the age of 55 is quashed, writ petition is allowed. Petitioner would be entitled to all consequential reliefs i.e. back wages etc. The respondent would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.