The appellant challenged the aforesaid numberice of companypulsory retirement by filing Civil Writ Petition No.
6353 of 2000 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.9.2002 by a Division Bench of the High Court.
If the companypetent authority once again companyes to the companyclusion that the petitioner did number deserve to companytinue beyond 55 years of age, the petitioner shall number get any other relief.
II and accordingly he will be deemed to have retired from service after the expiry of period of numberice i.e. on 7.9.1989.
9623 of 1989, the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, companysidered the matter again and after detailed examination of the service record of the appellant passed a fresh order on 6.11.1995 holding that the appellant did number deserve to companytinue in service beyond the age of 55 years and that he was rightly retired at the said age.
As already mentioned, this order attained finality as the letters patent appeal, review petition and also the special leave petition preferred against the said order were dismissed.
However, it is left open to the companypetent authority to independently examine the record of the petitioner and take a fresh decision as to whether the petitioner should have been retained in service beyond 55 years of age.
The companypetent authority shall take a decision without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
The appellant then challenged the order dated 6.11.1995 by filing Civil Writ Petition No.
Thereafter, Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
The letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench on 20.11.1997 and review petition was also dismissed on 20.3.1998.
11428 11429 of 1998 were preferred in this Court challenging the orders passed in letters patent appeal and in the review petition and the same were dismissed on 5.11.1999.
In companypliance of the orders passed on 5.5.1995 in Civil Writ Petition No.
P. Mathur, J. Leave granted.
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.9.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant for quashing the order dated 6.11.1995 companypulsorily retiring the appellant from service was dismissed.
The appellant, who was a Sub Inspector of Police, was served a numberice dated 8.6.1989 by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, by which he was informed that he had attained the age of 55 years on 9.6.1989 and as he was number companysidered fit to be retained in service beyond the said age, he was being given numberice of three months as required under the provisions of Punjab Police Rules 18 1 c read with numbere below therein and Rule 5.32 of C.S.R. Vol.
Such decision should be taken by the companypetent authority within three months of the receipt of a companyy of this order.
9623 of 1989, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 5.5.1995 and the operative part of the order reads as under In the result, the writ petition is allowed only on the ground that the companypetent authority did number apply its mind to the record of the petitioner but acted under the dictates of his superior officer while issuing the impugned numberice and, therefore, the impugned numberice is quashed.
