J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration has been decreed by both the Courts below.
(2.) Brij Lal, plaintiff, was appointed as a Kanungo on July 1, 1944 and was confirmed as such on Jan. 9, 1958. He was promoted as a Naib-Tehsildar on April 9, 1959, though formerly from the year 1953, he had held that office only temporarily. He was involved in three criminal cases in the year 1963, during his tenure as a Naib-Tehsildar, leading to his reversion to his substantive post of Kanungo and at the same time, he was placed under suspension with effect from March 1, 1964, before he took over the charge of the post to which he was reverted. He was acquitted in one of the two criminal cases in which regular challans were submitted in Court while the third one was withdrawn at the initial stage by the police itself. The criminal case relating to first information report No. 122 of July 22, 1963, was still pending when the show cause notice dated June 17, 1972, Exhibit P. 2, was communicated to him by the Collector, Gurdaspur. This took place when he was reinstated on Jan. 27, 1972, by reason of his acquittal in one of the criminal cases and another criminal case having been withdrawn by the Police. The plaintiff, through the show cause notice, Exhibit P. 2, retiring him at the age of 55 years, was specifically informed that the same was without prejudice to the result of the criminal case pending against him in the Criminal Court. A reply to this show cause notice was given by him on Aug. 2, 1972, Exhibit P. 3 However, the same was found to be unsatisfactory as it so appears from the impugned order passed on Oct. 16, 1972, Exhibit P. 4. Through this order, he was ordered to be retired from service at the age of 55 years after the expiry of the requisite notice period of three months. The plaintiff called in question the said order of the compulsory retirement, Exhibit P. 4, and the show cause notice dated June 17,1972, by filing the present suit. It was alleged that those orders were illegal, void and ineffective in view of the regular enquiry proceedings having been not held either under the Punjab Civil Services Rules or under Art. 311 of the Constitution. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground thar the impugned order dated Oct. 16, 1972, retiring him at the age of 55 years was quite in order, valid and legal and was not passed by way of punishment. The trial Court found that the impugned order was illegal and in operative in view of the same casting a stigma on the plaintiff. It was further found that the considerations which weighed with the authorities in retiring him compulsorily from service at the age of 55 years were not justified and were ill-conceived. In view of these findings, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in his favour. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Punjab has come up in second appeal to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order, Exhibit P. 4, was never passed by way of punishment and, thus, there was no question of any stigma attaching to the plaintiff. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution were not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Gian Singh Vs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 1894 and Kartar Singh Vs. The Punjab State, 1982 (1) Services Law Reporter 307 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order to compulsory retire the plaintiff, in this case, was passed by way of punishment and since no opportunity was afforded to him before passing the impugned order, the same was bad in law. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon the State of Bihar Vs. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 1011 ; Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1971 (1) Services Law Reporter 708 ; State of U.P. Vs. Madan Mohan Nagar, A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 1260 and Purshotam Sarup Johari Vs. State of U.P., 1976 (1) Services Law Reporter 506 .;