BAL RAJ TULI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner. Shri Baldev Rai Guliani. was recruited to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as a result of his success in the competitive examination held in June, 1954. He was appointed as Subordinate Judse IV Class on February 27, 1956 and was conferred powers of Subordinate Judge I Class in 1957. He was confirmed as a member of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) with effect from October 26. 1957, vide order dated March 17. 1961. He was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from February 27, 1964, vide order dated February 2. 1965. The petitioner was posted as Subordinate Judge-cum-Magistrate I Class. Amloh, District Patiala from May 28. 1964 to May 18. 1965, and the Bar Association of that place sent certain complaints against his integrity to the High Court which were entrusted to Shri Gurbachan Singh, District Judge, for a fact-finding enquiry by letter dated may 11, 1965. On the report of Shri Gurbachan Singh the High Court came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for departmental enquiry. Conseauentlv. Shri Pritam Singh Pattar (then District Judge. Sa'ngrur, and now an Hon'ble Judge of this Court) was appointed an Enauirv Officer on July 21. 1966, to enauire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended by the State Government pending enauiry at the instance of the High Court. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report to this Court and found him guilty of all charges except one. On a perusal of that report, the High Court formed an opinion that it was a fit case in which the punishment of removal from service should be inflicted on the petitioner. Conseauently the case was sent to the State Government to serve the show cause notice under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. That notice was issued to the petitioner by the State Government on March 13, 1967, to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him. This notice was issued by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on April 20, 1967, through the High Court. The High Court considered that explanation and expressed the view that it was not satisfactory and recommended that the petitioner should be removed from service. The State Government examined the case and was inclined to agree with the views of the High Court and the recommendation made by it. The Government, however, referred the case to the Harvana Public Service Commission for advice because it was considered that such reference to the Commission was necessary in view of the provisions of Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution and the relevant rules. The Haryana Public Service Commission advised that no case had been made out against the petitioner and that he should be exonerated. The State Government once again examined the case in the light of the views of the commission and decided to accept its advice that the petitioner should be exonerated. The advice of the Commission, however, was not sent to the High Court for examination or comments and an order reinstating the petitioner in service with immediate effect was issued by the State Government on August 24. 1968, a copy qf which was sent to the Registrar of this Court for information and necessary action. This order reads as under :- " The Governor of Haryana is pleased to reinstate Shri B. R. Guliani. H. C. S. (Judicial Branch) under suspension, in service with immediate effect. Orders regarding his pav and allowance during the suspension period will be issued separately. " A D. O. letter dated August 24. 1968, was also received by the Registrar of this Court from Shri H. V. Goswami, I. A. S. (presumably the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Services Department, Haryana Government) reading as under :-" I am desired to refer to the Hon'ble High Court's letter No. 671/rhc. dated the 31st May. 1967, and the subsequent correspondence resting with No. 85/rhc. dated the 24th January, 1968, and to sav that the case was referred to the Haryana Public Service Commission for advice. The Commission have recommended that Shri Guliani may be completely exonerated of all charges. The State Government have decided to accept the advice of the Commission in this case and orders regarding the reinstatement of Shri Guliani in service are being issued separately. I am desired to request that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly consider the question of posting Shri Guliani on his reinstatement in service. "
(2.) THE High Court, however, did not issue any posting orders to the petitioner for it was of the opinion that the order was not legal as it had been passed on the advice of the Public Service Commission which could not be consulted in the matter and the Government should have passed the order in the light of the recommendation made by it. Consequently, the High Court requested the Government to review its order reinstating the petitioner but the Government did not take any action on that suggestion. The petitioner was not allowed any salary for the period subsequent to the order of reinstatement, except the subsistence allowance which was being paid to him during the period of suspension, by the Accountant General on the ground, that after reinstatement he had not been appointed to a post by the High Court and unless that was done, he could not be allowed to draw any salary. The High Court refused to give the posting orders because in its view he was still under suspension and had not been validlv reinstated. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on July 12. 1971, inter alia, for the following reliefs:- (a) that the writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 t0 post the petitioner as Sub Judge First Class-Cum-Magistrate First Class as a member of the Harvana Civil Service (Judicial) be issued; (b) that a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse full salary to the petitioner including the salary for the period when the petitioner remained under susoension, be issued; (c) that a direction to respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner be considered for promotion to the higher post of Additional District and Sessions Judge with retrospective effect from the date when person iunior to him was promoted to that post, be issued; (d) that any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case be issued. This petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on February 15, 1972, and the Bench expressed the opinion that the points raised in the petition were of considerable importance and the decision, one way, or the other, would have a very far-reaching effect and, therefore, it was appropriate if this petition was decided by a larger Bench of five Judges for an authoritative pronouncement. In pursuance of that order of reference, this petition has come up before this Bench for decision.
(3.) IT may also be mentioned that the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on January 5. 1975, and a notice was issued to him on December 16. 1974, informing him that after the expirv of three months from the date of receipt of the notice he shall be deemed to have retired from service under Rule 5. 32 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. This notice was issued by the State Government on "the recommendation of the High Court. The petitioner has not challenged the issue of that notice and has accepted the same.;