K.N.SINGH,J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Collector, Azamgarh, dated September 30, 1975, retiring the peti­tioner compulsorily from service under Fundamental Rule 56 on his attaining the age of 50 years by giving him three months salary in lieu of period of notice.
(2.) IN 1953 the petitioner was appointed Collection Amin in tempo­rary capacity in the collection establishment of Talisil Sadar, district Azamgarh. Some of the posts in the collection scheme were later on made permanent and it was integrated with the ministerial establish­ment of the district. The petitioner however worked as Collection Amin against a permanent post with effect from April 1, 1962. In 1975, while the petitioner was working as Custodian Amin he was under suspension as departmental proceedings were contemplated against him. On September 12, 1975, the Collector framed a formal charge-sheet against the petitioner containing two charges and ap­pointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, to hold enquiry into those charges. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation to the charges and to produce evidence in his defence but before the enquiry could be held and departmental proceedings could be com­pleted, the Collector retired the petitioner from service by his order dated September 30, 1975. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this petition challenging the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order of pre­mature retirement was passed by way of punishment without giving any opportunity of showing cause. I find considerable force in this contention. It is admitted by the respondents that on September 12, 1975, charges were framed against the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry into those charges and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation. This is clear from Annexure I to the petition. The charge contained allegation that the petitioner had temporarily embezzled Government dues causing financial loss to the Government. The charges were serious in nature, in the event of proof of those charges the petitioner would have normally been awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. It was in this background that the Collector instead of pursuing the depart­mental enquiry, terminated the petitioner's service by retiring him prematurely. There is no explanation in the counter-affidavit as to what happened to the departmental proceedings. It appears that during the pendency of the departmental proceedings the Collector thought it expedient to retire the petitioner instead of taking cum­bersome proceedings of departmental trial. Though the order is in­nocuous, the sequence of events which led to the issue of the order clearly show that the petitioner was prematurely retired from service by way of punishment on account of the said charges. The principle laid down in Sukhraj Baliadur v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1098 " and State of Bihar v. S. R. Misra A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1011 are fully applicable to the instant case. The attending circumstances clearly show that the impugned order is not a simple order of premature retirement, instead it is an order of pun­ishment. It is well settled that if the order of premature retirement is passed by way of punishment the Govt. servant is entitled to the protection of Art. 311 of the Constitution. In the instant case, it is conceded that the petitioner was not afforded any opporunity of de­fence. It is thus clear that the impugned order of compulsory retire­ment was passed in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution.
(3.) I , therefore, allow the petition and quash the order of the Col­lector dated September 30, 1975. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.;