- (1.)VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner was selected as a Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police on 7-3-1974. By an order dated 7-2- 2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, Bareilly, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to work till completing the age of retirement and to pay him salary and other emoluments admissible to him.
(2.)I have heard Sri R. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed on extraneous considerations without assigning any reason or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the service record of the petitioner has been very good and only because of the petitioner having made an entry in the General Diary on 13-4-2000 with regard to pressure exerted on him by the senior officers for submitting a final report in a particular case, a vigilance enquiry was directed against the petitioner on 17-4-2000. Thereafter on 11-5-2000 and 4-7-2000 the petitioner was repeatedly transferred. When nothing was found against the petitioner in the vigilance enquiry, in order to punish and harm the petitioner, without assigning any reason the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed by the respondents.

Learned Standing Counsel has, however, justified the action of compulsorily retiring the petitioner and has stated that no notice to the petitioner was required to be given nor any reason was required to be assigned in the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner and as such the same does not call for any interference.

(3.)IN paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been stated that "the service career of the petitioner is found to be satisfactory and the entire service role of the petitioner contains good, very good and excellent also ". IN reply to the said paragraph of the writ petition, it has merely been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that such averments are wrong and denied. No explanation as to why the said averments are wrong, has been given in the counter-affidavit. It has also not been stated that there has ever been any adverse entry awarded to the petitioner. IN paragraph 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that". . . . . . . the impugned order has been passed without taking into account the entire relevant material, history and service record of the petitioner. The petitioner is quite physically fit to discharge the duties assigned to the post of Sub-INspector of Police and from the service record of the petitioner, no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material about the retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from perversity". IN paragraph 12 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that "there is nothing adverse in service record of the petitioner which may entitle the respondents to pass the impugned order in the event when the petitioner has been finally exonerated by the Vigilance Department. " IN paragraph 13 of the writ petition it has been averred that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order and that the subjective satisfaction of the respondents must be verified by independent material and the service record of the petitioner.
The reply to paragraphs No. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition has been given paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit and it has merely been stated that the averments of the said paragraphs are wrong and that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing. Except for that, nothing has been stated in reply to the specific averments made by the petitioner in paragraphs No. 11 and 12 of the writ petition, relevant extract of which have been quoted above. As such, from the record it does not appear that there was any material against the petitioner so as to warrant an order of compulsory retirement. Merely because a Vigilance enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner would not be a sufficient ground to take such action against the petitioner. In the vigilance enquiry report also nothing material has been found against him, as the property which was sold by the wife of the petitioner was inherited by her from her parents. The only remark against the petitioner in the said report is that prior permission of such sale had not been obtained by the petitioner.