High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shiv Ram Lekhpal v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 11518 of 1994  RD-AH 9811 (22 May 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11518 of 1994
State of U.P. & Others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 1.3.1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and for commanding the respondents to continue him in service till he attains the age of superannuation and also to pay arrears of his salary etc.
The petitioner was a Lekhpal. He was suspended by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 4.4.1992. However, he was reinstated in service with the following three punishments: -
1.He will not be entitled to any pay except subsistence allowance for the suspension period.
2.He is reinstated on the basic pay, and
3.with special adverse entry
Against the aforesaid punishment the petitioner made a representation dated 31.7.1993 which he alleges to have not been decided as yet. He was served with a charge sheet dated 21.2.1994 wherein as many as 5 charges were framed against him, the main charge being that he had given a report that the Pradhan of the Village was trying to encroach upon plot no. 466 by raising two walls on the old Abadi which was found wrong by the Supervisor Kanungo stating that the petitioner had given the report regarding plot no. 688. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge sheet stating that he had given the report regarding plot no. 466 and not plot no. 688. Ultimately orders were passed for demolishing the wall raised on said plot no. 466 on the report of the petitioner.
It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid wrong report the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has compulsorily retired him from service vide impugned order dated 1.3.1994 allegedly without holding any departmental enquiry. It is alleged that except the adverse entry in question there is no other adverse entry in his character roll in his entire service since 1968 against which he has filed a representation which is alleged to have not been decided till date.
From the record it appears that this Court vide interim order dated 5.4.1994 stayed the operation of the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 1.3.1994 which remained operative till he attained the age of superannuation in January, 2001.
It has come on the record that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of his compulsorily retirement has not been passed by the competent/appointing authority.
I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar who has passed the impugned order was not appointing authority of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has specifically referred to the power under which he has passed the impugned order of retiring the petitioner compulsorily. Moreover, the petitioner has already worked and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. However, as the petitioner has worked under the interim order of this Court after he was compulsorily retired, no recovery from his wages shall be made as he has worked for remuneration, but his retiral benefits would be computed on the basis of his date of compulsory retirement treating him to have retired on 1.3.1994.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.