- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 15th December, 2008 issued under Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules. The ground urged in the writ petition is that the order is punitive in nature and was not issued in public interest, and that it was based on an ex-parte report of the Tehsildar which indicated that the petitioner had manipulated the revenue records. On this allegation notices were issued and the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit.
(3.) THE counter affidavit reveals that the Committee constituted for this purposes considered the service record of the petitioner of the last 10 years and found that the petitioner was suspended on four occasions and, that there were four other adverse entries indicating that he was inefficient and that he had a bad image in the eyes of the public and, that he was not taking any interest in his work and that he was also found drunk on duty.;