- (1.) Challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 21.08.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, on 6.4.1996, a charge memo was served upon the petitioner and he was put under suspension. Several charges were framed against the petitioner. One of the charges related to transgressing his power and authorising a clerk to inspect the site and for accepting the report submitted by the clerk which was found not true and hence misleading the Corporation. The inspection was carried out for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 12,000/- for setting up a furniture shop. After the inquiry, the order of punishment was passed in which the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the inquiry report found that only charge No. 2 is proved against the petitioner and he passed an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the services. Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed staling that the order of penalty dated 21.08.2001 was passed in view of the overall circumstances and the allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner unauthorisedly permitted a clerk to inspect the site and without physically verifying the site himself submitted the report and thus neglected in discharging his duties and therefore, the said order has been passed against him.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.;