- (1.) HEARD Mr.Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. Writ Petition No.7136 (SS) 2006
(2.) THROUGH the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 18th of May, 2006.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 30.9.1970 on the post of Constable Civil Police and from the date of his initial appointment he rendered continuous service with utmost sincerity and satisfaction to his senior officers till the date of his compulsory retirement dated 18th of May, 2006. It is stated that the appointing authority has issued the order of compulsory retirement, pursuant to the direction of the Superior Authorities, who are the opposite parties 2 and 3, thus, it suffers from bias attitude of the opposite parties. It is further stated that the compulsory retirement is made to the persons, who are useless for employment, but the petitioner has rendered the services obediently and with full dedication. It is further stated that since the order has been passed at the dictate of Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police, therefore, it is unsustainable as the Deputy Inspector General of Police is the appellate authority and the Inspector General of Police is the revisional authority, who could not exercise the power to punish an employee. In support of his submission he cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.Loganathan versus Union of India and others, 2012 1 SCC(L&S) 104. Relevant paragraph 10 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: - "10. In SURJIT GHOSH v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK, 1995 2 SCC 474], while considering the provisions of the United Commercial Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1976, this Court held thus:(SCC p.477, para 6) "6.....It is true that when an authority higher than the disciplinary authority itself imposes the punishment, the order of punishment suffers from no illegality when no appeal is provided to such authority. However, when an appeal is provided to the higher authority concerned against the order of disciplinary authority or of a lower authority and the higher authority passes an order of punishment, the employee concerned is deprived of the remedy of appeal which is a substantive right given to him by the Rules/Regulations. An employee cannot be deprived of his substantive right. What is further, when there is a provision of appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority and when the appellate or the higher authority against whose order there is no appeal, exercises the powers of the disciplinary authority in a given case, it results in discrimination against the employee concerned. This is particularly so when there are no guidelines in the Rules/Regulations as to when the higher authority or the appellate authority should exercise the powers of the disciplinary authority. The higher or appellate authority may choose to exercise the power of the disciplinary authority in some cases while not doing so in other cases. In such cases, the right of the employee depends upon the choice of the higher/appellate authority which patently results in discrimination between an employee and employer. Surely, such a situation cannot savour of legality.";