- (1.) Surendra Shankar Awasthi has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of compulsory retirement passed by opposite party No. 1 dated 28th Dec, 1979. He has further prayed that a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order of compulsory retirement contained in Annexure 18. The usual prayer for costs has also been made.
(2.) Briefly stating, the facts are that the petitioner joined as Principal of Bhatkhande College of Hindustani Music, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as the Music College), having been selected by the Public Service Commission on 5th Feb., 1970. He was confirmed on 5th Feb., 1972. Thereafter he went to Allahabad University to act as Professor and Head of the Music and Fine Arts Department on deputation. He returned from deputation on 24th Oct., 1979 and resumed his office of Principal of the Music College. It was on 28th Dec, 1979 that the order of compulsory retirement was passed and served on the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order has filed this petition, inter alia, alleging that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed on extraneous considerations about which details have been spelt out in the various paragraphs of the writ petition which, in our opinion, do not require to be mentioned. It has been emphasised that the order has been passed by way of punishment and is visited with malice borne by respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Various assertions running from paragraph 19 onwards have been mentioned in the writ petition.
(3.) The petition has been resisted on behalf of the respondents and counter affidavits have been filed. The assertions made in the petition, so far as they relate to the facts, have been admitted, but so far as other allegations of mala fide are concerned, they have been denied. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Smt. Manjulika Gautam, respondent No. 3, it has been asserted that a Screening Committee had been constituted to look into the various allegations with respect to the petitioner and four other officers. It has further been asserted that a secret vigilance enquiry had been made and thereafter an open enquiry had also been made by the Vigilance Department and that report was placed before the Committee which was of the view that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in public interest.;