- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In both these writ petitions, common question of law and fact are involved. Parties are also the same, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this Common judgment.
(2.) BY means of this Writ Petition No. 1676 (SS)of 1993, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-1-1993 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Lekhpal by the Settlement Of ficer Consolidation, Faizabad. Prayer for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for a direction la the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and pay his salary till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation, has also been made. Writ Petition No. 4633 (SS) of 1998 has been filed challenging the validity of order dated 18-11-1989 whereby petitioner was awarded minor punishment of permanent stoppage of one annual in crement. In the said petition, prayer for writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner with effect from 26-4-1987 when he was suspended from service, has also been made. The brief and relevant facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid writ peti tions are that the petitioner was appointed as Consolidation Lekhpal in the year 1968. His services on the said post were con firmed in 1985. It was on 26-4-1987, the petitioner was suspended from service while he was posted at Shahzadpur Circle district Faizabad (Now Ambedkar Nagar) challenging the validity of the order of suspension he filed Writ Petition No. 1025 (SS) of. 1989, the said petition was deposed of finally by judgment and order dated 2-2-1989 by this Court, with the directions to the respondents to issue charge-sheet within the lime specified by this Court and to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously preferably within 3 months, failing which the suspension order was directed to be revoked. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner on 9-8-1989. Thereafter, another additional charge-sheet was served upon him on 23-9-1989. It was on 19-10-1989 that the petitioner submitted his explanation before the Consolidation Officer, Jalalpur district Ambedkar Nagar who was ap pointed as Enquiry Officer in this case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16-9-1989. Petitioner, thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 10891 (SS) of 1989 for issuance of the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to reinstate him with effect from 26-4- 1987, when he was placed under suspension, prayer for quashing the Enquiry Report was also made as the order dated 2-2-1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 1025 (SS) of 1989 was not obeyed by the respondents. The petitioner also filed Contempt petition No. 1276 (C) of 1990. In the reply filed in the Contempt Case it was slated that in disciplinary proceedings final order was already passed and petitioner was reinstated. In the Writ Petition No. 19891 (SS) of 1989 also a counter-affidavit was filed in which it was slated that on 18-11 1989, the petitioner was reinstated and was permitted to resume his duties. It was also slated that regarding payment of salary for the period of suspension, a show cause notice was issued which the petitioner refused to accept. On 16-1- 1993, the petitioner was compulsorily relied from service allegedly in the public interest. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 1676 (SS) of 1993, referred to above. The Writ Petition No. 10891 (SS) of 1989 came up for hearing on 29-1-1996 and was deposed of with the observations that unless order dated 18-11-1989 is set aside, the petitioner was not entitled lo any relief. Challenging the validity of the order dated 29-1-1986, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 1991 (SB) of 1996. The said Special Appeal was finally disposed of on 17-4-1996 with the directions to (he petitioner to appear before the Respondent No. 3 and the said respondent was directed to make available the copy of the order dated 18-11-89. In compliance of the order passed by them Court, the petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 3 on 13-5-1996 and Respondent No. 3supplied the copy of the said order whereby one annual increment in the salary of the petitioner was per manently slopped and notice, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the censure entry be not awarded to him, was also issued. It was staled that after receipt of explanation of the petitioner, orders regarding payment of salary will be passed. Challenging the validity of the order dated 18-11-1989, petitioner filed a departmen tal appeal/representation on 9-8-19% and on the same dale also submitted his ex planation. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner was not disposed of, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4633 (SS) of 1998 for the above mentioned reliefs. On behalf of respondents counter affidavits have been filed in the above noted writ petitions, in which material facts slated in the writ petitions have not been controverted. It has, however, been asserted that in the year 1987-88, while posted at Jalalpur petitioner was suspended. His integrity was also not certified. That in the year 1993 Meeting of Screening Committee was held which, after examining the service records recom mended for compulsory retirement of 34 Lekhpals, out of whom 20 were compulsorily retired. It has been asserted that order of retirement against the petitioner was passed in the public interest and in accordance with law, on the basis of the report of the screening committee.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner worked with utmost sincerity, honesty and with full devotion, he had unbkimishcd service record, was never awarded adverse entry, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to retire him from service before he attained the age of super annuation. The petitioner, according to him, had right to continue in service till he attained the age of retirement. Order of compulsory retirement, according to him, was violative to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as it amounted to an order of punishment. The said order having been passed without fol lowing the procedure prescribed under law, was liable to be quashed. According to him, even minor punishment of stoppage of increment permanently for one year could not be awarded to the petitioner. It was further urged that on the record, there was no material on the basis of which the competent authority formed opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner from service. On the other hand learned Stand ing Counsel supported the validity of im pugned order and submitted that the order passed by the competent authority retiring the petitioner compulsory from service. was based on relevant material on the record. The same was quite valid and en forceable in law.;