H.R.Sodhi, J. - (1.) The sole question that arises for determination in this case is whether compulsory retirement of the petitioner as per impugned order (Annexure 'F') casts a stigma on him so as to be deemed to have been passed by way of punishment thereby attracting Art. 311 of the Constitution. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to state a few facts in a short compass.
(2.) The petitioner joined Punjab Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) as an Electrical Overseer in the year 1942 and was later confirmed after partition in the erstwhile State of Punjab in the year 1948. An inquiry was started against him in the year 1954, for some alleged misconduct. Shri H.L. Kumar, who was then an Executive Electrical Engineer, Building and Roads, was appointed the Inquiry Officer but the petitioner protested against his appointment as he believed that this Inquiry Officer was biased against him. He made some abortive attempts to get the Inquiry Officer changed but ultimately he did succeed and Shri S. L. Nayar, Superintending Engineer, P.W.D.& R. was appointed to conduct the inquiry. On the conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on 2nd April, 1957, and appeal filed by him to the State Government was rejected on 10th Sept., 1957. The petitioner then moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and as a result of the acceptance of the writ petition, the order of his dismissal from service was quashed. The petitioner was reinstated on 14th April, 1960. The High Court took the view that the show-cause notice as issued to the petitioner was defective, but the Government was held not to be debarred from issuing a fresh and proper notice and taking such action as it thought fit. A fresh show-cause notice proposing punishment was accordingly issued by the Chief Engineer on 31st May 1960, to which a reply was duly submitted. On a consideration of the explanation of the petitioner he was dismissed on 29th Dec., 1960. He preferred a departmental appeal which met with no success and consequently a suit was filed by him in a Civil Court. The suit was decreed on 31st may, 1963 and appeal by the State Government preferred to the District Judge failed on 20th Feb., 1964. The petitioner was again ordered to be reinstated on 31st July, 1964, but before the said order was given effect to, he was compulsorily retired with effect from 18th Dec., 1964 under the impugned order Annexure 'F' Representations made by the petitioner to the Minister-in-charge of the department seeking redress against the impugned order produced no result. Hence the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. H.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced the following contentions - (1) That the entire history and circumstances of the case establish beyond doubt that the impugned action was taken against the petitioner mala fide because Sarvshri H.L. Kumar and S.L. Nayar Inquiry Officers, were inimically disposed towards him since the year 1951 and it was sheer out of vindictiveness that the petitioner was compulsorily retired. (2) That the retirement of the petitioner in the present circumstances casts a stigma on the petitioner and Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution was consequently attracted, non-compliance with which renders the impugned order invalid and inoperative. (3) That the order of retirement is based on instructions as contained in Punjab Government circular letter No. 5410-3GS-63/11926, dated the 28th March, 1963 (Annexure R. 4), and no instructions could affect the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner.;