- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12-1-90 passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure-2 to the writ petition direction compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Clause (2) of the U. P. Fundamental Rule 56 (c ).
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal on 25th April, 1953. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has arbitrarily passed the impugned order prematurely retiring the petitioner, though the work," conduct and performance of the petitioner have always been found to be excellent and during the entire service tenure the petitioner was never communicated any adverse remarks and no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him at the time when im pugned action was taken. THE petitioner was suspended in December, 1988, but on inquiry the suspension order was revoked in March, 1989 and the petitioner was reinstated. THE impugned order was not at all in public interest and is wholly arbitrary and mala fide and is liable to quashed. In the counter, affidavit, the respondents have tried to defend the im pugned order by asserting that the im pugned order was passed by respondent No. 2 on a consideration of the report of the Screening Committee. The petitioner remained suspended from 21-12-88 to 15-3-89 as his work was not satisfactory. He was fined in the year 1962. He was of course reinstated within a year of his suspension, but he was censured for being irregular in the discharge of this duties of KRISHI GARNA. Under the relevant Rules there was no provision for giving any prior notice before making an order of compulsory retirement nor principles of natural justice are applicable. The im pugned order was passed in public interest on the basis of service record which was examined by the Screening Committee. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated that it was a apparent from the stand taken by the respondents that the sale basis of passing the order was the suspension order dated 21. 12. 88 wherein after the inquiry the authority found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were baseless and consequent ly, the suspension order was revoked in 15-3-89 and therefore, the same could not be made the basis for passing the im pugned order. The petitioner had never been communicated any adverse remarks during the entire period of his service.
(3.) BY interim order of this Court dated 29-8-91 it was ordered that the im pugned order will not be given effect to and it was further directed that the petitioner would be allowed to perform duties and would also be paid his salary. It further appears that the petitioner there after continued in service till he reached the age of superannuation. In view of the fact that the petitioner has now admittedly retired, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press the relief for issuing mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, how ever, prayed for the quashing of the im pugned order because if the same is al lowed to stand, that would affect the petitioner's post retirement benefits.;