93,000 would be payable to the appellant as and by way of backwages and he would be entitled to gratuity and pension thereafter.
After an elaborate discussion , the learned Judicial Commissioner recorded a finding that Government of India was a necessary party and in its absence the petition is incompetent and must be rejected.
311 1 and therefore , numberformal enquiry was necessary to be held before imposing the penalty.
22 of 1964 which came to be disposed of after a lapse of six years on November 28 , 1970.
I From the Judgment and Order dated 28 11.1970 of the Judicial Commissioners Court of Tripura in Writ Petition No.
After having reached this firm companyclusion , the learned Judicial Commissioner proceeded to investigate the companytention of the appellant that the enquiry against him was held in violation of the principles of natural justice , and that the Chief Forest Officer being number the appointing authority companyld number impose the penalty of companypulsory retirement on the appellant.
As the facts were number clear , a direction was given that the matter be listed on August 7 , 1984 for clarification about the date of superannuation of the appellant.
The respondents resisted the writ petition inter alia companytending that as the punishment of companypulsory retirement does number tantamount to dismissal or removal from service as companytemplated by Art.
By raising and accepting such a companytention, after a laps of six years , the law is brought into ridicule.
However , at this stage , Mr. Abdul Khader , learned companynsel for the State of Tripura pointed out that as the appellant even on his showing has reached the age of superannuation , even if the impugned order is illegal and invalid , the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to him.
93,000 by a demand draft drawn in favor of the appellant within four weeks from the date of the order.
However , companysistent with his view that the writ petition in the absence of Union of India was companypetent , he rejected the writ petition.
In short it was alleged that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
At the resumed hearing it was companyceded that, had the appellant number been companypulsorily retired from service , he would have retired on superannuation on December 6, 1978.
It was companytended that adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellant to companytrovert the charges and defend himself.
In respect of the second companytention , the learned judicial Commissioner held that as it has been unquestionably established that the appellant was appointed by the Chief Commissioner , the Chief Forest Officer , a subordinate of the Chief Commissioner was number companypetent to impose the penalty of companypulsory retirement and therefore on merit the order was bad.
In his writ petition the appellant had impleaded 1 The Secretary to the Government of India , Ministry of Home Affairs , 2 The Chief Commissioner , Tripura , 3 The Secretary to the Government of Tripura , Forest Department and 4 The Chief Forest Officer , Government of Tripura , last one being the one who had passed the impugned order of companypulsory retirement.
The plight of the appellant lent urgency to the matter in as much as the appellant was without succour for a long period, a direction was given that the second respondent i.e. Tripura Administration should pay Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Surprisingly , when the matter was taken up for hearing , the learned judicial Commissioner suo moto raised the objection that i n the absence of Union of India being made a party , the petition was number properly companystituted.
And who is to blame , if number, the system The appellant questioned the companyrectness and validity of the order of companypulsory retirement n Writ Petition No.
The companyrt companyld have companyveniently read the cause title as Government of India which means Union of India through the Secretary , Ministry of Home Affairs instead of the description set out in the writ petition and this very petition would be companypetent by any standard.
22/ 1964.
1605 of 1971.
On that day a direction was given that the second respondent should companypute and calculate the backwages payable to the appellant on the footing that the order of companypulsory retirement is illegal and invalid and the appellant companytinued to be in service till December 9 , 1978.
M. Abdul Khader and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
Since then he is knocking at the doors of the companyrts in search of illusory justice and chased mirage till he reached the age of superannuation.
The grievance in the writ petition was that penalty of companypulsory retirement was imposed upon the appellant without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to defend himself and to explain the charges leveled against him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI , J. Murari Mohan Deb , a Forester in the employment of Tripura Government was companypulsorily retired from service by the order dated October 12 , 1962 of the 4th respondent Chief Forest Officer.
N. Mukherjee for the Appellant.
Alas the ways of justice like the ways of Providence are inscrutable.
The matter thereafter was listed on October 17 , 1984 when Mr. Abdul Khader , learned companynsel for the second respondent produced before us the rough companyputation made by the companypetent authority pursuant to our direction showing that approximately Rs.
