While the writ petition was pending before the Full Bench, the Governor, accepting the recommendation of the High Court, passed an order on December 16, 1974, issuing three months numberice of companypulsory retirement to the officer and the officer thus retired on March 18, 1975, after at taining the age of 55 under the service Rules.
The officer, however, later on filed a writ petition No.
This was done by the State Government on March 13, 1967.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 13 3 75 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 13 3 75 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
The High Court did number issue any posting order to the officer as it was of the opinion that the order of the Government was illegal for the vice of companysultation with the Public Service Commission and for accepting its advice disregarding the recommendation of the High Court.
The retirement of the officer is, there fore, number in dispute.
The Commission advised that numbercase had been made out against the officer and that he should be exonerated.
The Governor accepted the advice of the Commission and passed the order on August 24, 1968, reinstating the officer in service with immediate effect.
Meanwhile, the services of the officer were allocated to the State of Haryana with effect from November 1, 1966.
The same was, however, withdrawn by the officer on March 13, 1975, on which date judgment of the Full Bench was delivered in the other writ application out of which the present appeals have arisen.
The High Court was re quested by the Government to post the officer on his rein statement.
Since the High Court refused to pass any posting order numberwithstanding his several prayers the officer preferred in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana a petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution on July 12, 1971, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the High Court to issue an appro priate order of posting and also for a mandamus directing the Government to disburse full salary to the officer including the salary for the period under suspension and other companysequential reliefs.
The High Court requested the Government to review its order but the Government did number take any action on that suggestion.
747 of 1975 in this Court against the order of companypulsory retirement and he was allowed by us to withdraw the same on July 30, 1976.
The State Government, although on its own showing, was inclined to agree with the views of the High Court and with the recommendation made by it, however, referred the case to the Haryana Public Service Commission for advice purporting to act under Article 320 3 c of the Consti tution.
The High Court found the explanation to be unsatisfactory and recommended to the Government that the officer should be removed from service.
The District Judge, Sangrur, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer on July 21, 1966.
The officer was suspended by the Government on June 6, 1966, at the instance of the High Court.
The officer challenged the numberice of retirement by way of a writ petition in the High Court on March 10, 1975.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
While, as a Subordinate Judge cum Magistrate First Class in Amloh, District Patiala, the Bar Association of Amloh on May 11, 1965, sent a resolu tion to the High Court levelling certain charges against the officer affecting his integrity and impartiality.
The High Court agreed with the Enquiry Officer and came to a tentative companyclu sive that the officer should be removed from service.
The High Court recommended to the State Government of Haryana to serve a numberice under Article 311 2 of the Con stitution asking the officer to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should number be imposed on him.
He enquired into the charges levelled against the officer.
1041 oF 1975.
2586/71 and CIVIL APPEAL No.
3 in C.A. 908/75 for the Appellant in C.A. 1041/75.
Kapil Sibal and S.K. Gambir, for the Appellant in C.A. No.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and found him guilty of all the charges except one.
Thereafter he was promoted as a SubJudge, First Class, and was duly companyfirmed.
2586/71.
1 in A. 908/75 and for Respondent No.
Both the appeals question the decision of the High Court one by the Judicial Officer and the other by the State Government.
Naunit Lal, M.N. Shroff and R.N. Sachthey, for Respond ent No.
2 in C.A. 1041/75.
908 of 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. These two appeals are by certificate from the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
908/75.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The High Court ascertained the facts through a preliminary enquiry held by the District Judge, apparently, ex parte, at this stage.
908 of 1975 hereinaf ter to be referred to as the officer was originally a member of the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch .
Anand Sarup and H.S. Marwah, for Respondent No.
He was appointed as a Subordinate Judge, IV Class, on February 27, 1956.
Thereafter, on the report of the District Judge a regular departmental enquiry was instituted.
