STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MOTI LAL BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letter Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment dated 15.12.1986 passed in CWP No. 5338 of 1985, vide which notice dated 5.7.1985 (Adnexure P-14) and order dated 27.9.1985 (Annexure P-15) vide which the writ petitioner (respondent No.1) was ordered to be retired with effect from 9.11.1985, was quashed. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition following the ratio of decision in C.W.P. No. 5777 of 1975 (Shri Manohar Lal Gupta, District Industries Officer, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab and another),decided on 23.11.1982.

(2.) The State of Haryana has impugned the judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge had erred in following the judgment in Manohar Lal Gupta's case . The ratio of the said decision cannot be applied in this case. The judgment has been further challenged on the ground that the respondent had the worst record in his service career and that at the time of passing the impugned order, pendency of departmental enquiry could not prevent the Government form exercising the powers vested in it from retiring the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) which was not by way of punishment.

(3.) Briefly stating, in 1985 respondent No. 1, who was an Inspector of Police, was under suspension as a departmental enquiry had been initiated, against him. While he was still under suspension, notice dated 5.7.1985 was served on him. This notice was to the effect that the Government has decided not to retain him in Government service beyond the age of 55 years in public interest and that he would stand retired from service after three months from the date of service of that notice or with effect from the afternoon on of 9.11.1985, whichever was latter. A subsequent order dated 27.9.1985 (Annexure P-15) was passed by the Director General of Police respondent No. 2, to the effect that on attaining the age of 55 years, respondent No. 1 (under suspension) would retire from service on the afternoon of 9.11.1985. The notice as also the order (Annexure P-14 and P-15, respectively) were impugned in the writ petition. While pursuing the proceedings against respondent No. 1 and having kept him under suspension, the appointing authority chose to get rid of respondent No. 1 from service, ordering by his retirement on attaining the age of 55 years.