- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the State Government dated 29-8-1974 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from Government service in exercise of its powers under Note (1) to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations by giving him three months salary in lieu of period of notice.
(2.) The petitioner joined the U. P Police Department as Sub-Inspector of Police. He was posted in the Government Railway Police at various stations from time to time. While he was pasted at Bareilly Junction, he was served with a charge-sheet on 16-12-1968 containing two charges. An enquiry officer was appointed and departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were taken against him. After the conclusion of the trial the enquiry officer submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Railways) with a recommendation to dismiss the petitioner from service as the charges were fully proved against him. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, however, upheld the petitioner's grievance that he was denied the opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses and for that reason the proceedings were again remanded to the enquiry officer for trial and for giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses. While the proceedings were pending at the defence stage the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11-2-1970. Later on the petitioner was served with another chargesheet dated 7-7-1971 which contained 17 charges (Annexure 2 to the petition). On a representation made by the petitioner the suspension order was withdrawn and the petitioner was reins- stated with effect from 9-11-1971 but the departmental trial in respect of the charges contained in the aforesaid two chargesheets continued to be held against him. During the pendency of the departmental trial the petitioner completed 55 years of age on 16-7-1974. On 29-8-1974 the impugned order was passed by the State Government retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service in exercise of its powers under Note (1) to Article 465 of Civil Service Regulations. The petitioner has challenged the validity of that order in the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that though the impugned order of compulsory retirement is innocuous on its face, but in substance it is an order of punishment which has been issued without affording any opportunity of defence to the petitioner as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The attending circumstances and the petitioner's trial on a number of serious charges have been referred to by the learned counsel to show that the order was passed at a time when the petitioner was facing trial on serious charges. A counter-affidavit has been filed to the petition by Mahabir Singh, Office Superintendent of the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government or of any officer of the Home Department. In the counter-affidavit Mahabir Singh has admitted that the departmental trial in respect of two charge-sheets were pending against the petitioner at the time when the impugned order was passed, but the departmental proceedings are now going to be dropped as the petitioner has been retired compulsorily from service. It is further asserted that the petitioner's work and conduct during his entire period of service was highly unsatisfactory as a result of which the State Government was of opinion that it was not in public interest to retain the petitioner in Government service. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it has been asserted that the fact of pendency of departmental proceedings was not taken into consideration by the State Government while deciding the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. On the basis of these averments it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the order is an order of compulsory retirement simpliciter and it is not an order of punishment.;