- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure P-5), whereby the order of compulsory retirement was passed against the petitioner, directing him to retire on attaining the age of 55 years.
(2.) Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 4.2.2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the competent authority, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager, taking way the sting of punishment order dated 2.7.1998 (Annexure R-1). Petitioner was exonerated by the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry. However, disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, respondent no.2 passed the punishment order dated 2.7.1998 (Annexue R-1) stopping one annual grade increment of the petitioner, with cumulative effect. He further submits that punishment order is not under challenge before this court. Petitioner is only aggrieved against the impugned order of compulsory retirement (Annexure P-5), because there was no sufficient material against the petitioner, which may declare him a deadwood. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order was non speaking and cryptic one. Orders contained in Annexures P-2 to P-4 would show that different service benefits were granted to the petitioner during this period and finally even the promotion order Annexure P-1 was passed in his favour, which clearly goes to show that respondent no.2 has misdirected himself, while passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement and this order is not sustainable in law. Feeling genuinely aggrieved, petitioner submitted his representation dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure P-6), but no order thereon was passed, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. He prays for setting aside the impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 12.10.2001, with all consequential service benefits, by allowing the present writ petition. Neither anybody has come present to argue this case nor any request for pass over has been made on behalf of the respondents.;