Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by Gian Chand petitioner against the order dated July 16, 1969, of the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, respondent No 3, retiring him compulsorily under rule 5.32 (o) of the Punjab Civil Services, Rules.
(2.) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Assistant Consolidation Officer by the Commissioner on March 22, 1955. Later, he was ordered to be retired by the Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 2, vide order dated July 16, 1969 (Annexure F). He has challenged the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that he was retired by a person who was lower in rank than that of the appointing authority and that the order of retirement is a mala fide one. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have controverted the aforesaid allegations. It is further stated by the State that the termination of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed by the Commissioner as Assistant Consolidation Officer. He submits that he could not be retired from service under Rule 5.32 by an authority who is lower in rank than that of the Commissioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that at the time when the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer, there were no rules. Later, the rules were framed known as the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings State . service Class III (Executive Service) Rules, 1962, and under these rules the appointing authority was the Director of Consolidation. According to the counsel, these Rules were enforced in 1962 and thereafter the Director of Consolidation of Holdings who was the appointing authority, had a right to terminate the services of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Gurdial Singh Bawa Vs. The Director of Industries, Haryana and Anr. 1971 (1) S L.R. 161 , and Ghanshyam Dass Shrivastava Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests (General) M. P. and another, 1978(1) S.L.R. 494.;