Court upholds suspension and retirement order, dismisses petition challenging Government's actions.

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the suspension order and revocation of leave preparatory to retirement. It found that the Government's actions were lawful, the service rules were applicable, and there was no violation of fundamental rights. Allegations of mala fide actions were not substantiated. The court held that the Government had the power to suspend the petitioner and retain him in service until the conclusion of the enquiry. The petitioner's arguments challenging the Government's orders were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of suspension order and revocation of leave preparatory to retirement.
3. Applicability of 1941 Rules vs. 1959 Rules.
4. Authority of the Punjab Government under Rule 3.26(d).
5. Timing and service of suspension order.
6. Grounds for quashing the Government's order.
7. Allegations of mala fide action by the Chief Minister.
8. Justiciability of service rules.
9. Power to suspend a Government servant.
10. Retention in service beyond the age of superannuation.
11. Recall from leave preparatory to retirement.
12. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 13, 14, 19, and 23 of the Constitution.
13. Validity of departmental enquiry vs. criminal prosecution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution:
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the suspension order, revocation of leave preparatory to retirement, and the impending enquiry against him.

2. Validity of Suspension Order and Revocation of Leave Preparatory to Retirement:
The petitioner argued that the suspension order and revocation of leave preparatory to retirement were illegal as they were served after his retirement date. The court found that the orders were published in the Gazette on June 10, 1961, and the petitioner had knowledge of them before his retirement date on June 15, 1961. The court held that the orders were valid and effective from the date of publication.

3. Applicability of 1941 Rules vs. 1959 Rules:
The petitioner contended that he was governed by the 1941 Rules and not the 1959 Rules. The court held that the 1959 Rules, made under Article 309 of the Constitution, applied to the petitioner as the 1941 Rules were abrogated. The court also noted that the petitioner entered service under the condition that rules could be altered, and he would be governed by the altered or new rules.

4. Authority of the Punjab Government under Rule 3.26(d):
The petitioner argued that Rule 3.26(d) did not apply to him and could not be invoked after he went on leave preparatory to retirement. The court held that Rule 3.26(d) applied to the petitioner and could be invoked at any time before the date of compulsory retirement.

5. Timing and Service of Suspension Order:
The petitioner claimed that the suspension order was served on him after his retirement date, making it ineffective. The court found that the orders were published in the Gazette on June 10, 1961, and the petitioner had knowledge of them before his retirement date. The court held that the orders were valid and effective from the date of publication.

6. Grounds for Quashing the Government's Order:
The petitioner raised several grounds for quashing the Government's order, including that the order under Rule 3.26(d) was not applicable to him, the suspension order was served after his retirement date, and the order revoking leave was not authorized by any rule of law. The court rejected all these grounds and upheld the validity of the Government's order.

7. Allegations of Mala Fide Action by the Chief Minister:
The petitioner alleged that the actions against him were taken mala fide by the Chief Minister. The court found that the allegations of mala fide were disputed questions of fact and could not be established based on the evidence presented. The court held that the orders were made in the exercise of lawful powers vested in the Government.

8. Justiciability of Service Rules:
The petitioner argued that service rules were justiciable and that he had a vested right to retire at the age of 55 years under the 1941 Rules. The court held that the 1959 Rules applied to the petitioner, and he was bound by the altered or new rules as per the conditions of his service.

9. Power to Suspend a Government Servant:
The petitioner contended that the Government had no power to suspend him without first framing charges against him. The court held that the Government had inherent or implied power to suspend a Government servant on a charge of misconduct and that the charges existed before the suspension order was made.

10. Retention in Service Beyond the Age of Superannuation:
The petitioner argued that his retention in service beyond the age of superannuation was not authorized by Rule 3.26(d). The court held that Rule 3.26(d) applied to the petitioner and that he could be retained in service until the enquiry into the charges was concluded.

11. Recall from Leave Preparatory to Retirement:
The petitioner contended that his leave preparatory to retirement could not be revoked, and he could not be recalled for the purpose of suspension. The court held that leave preparatory to retirement could be revoked, and the petitioner could be recalled for the purpose of suspension under the relevant rules.

12. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 13, 14, 19, and 23 of the Constitution:
The petitioner argued that the orders violated his fundamental rights under Articles 13, 14, 19, and 23 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner had no absolute right to retire at the age of 55 years and that the orders were made in accordance with the service rules. The court found no violation of fundamental rights.

13. Validity of Departmental Enquiry vs. Criminal Prosecution:
The petitioner contended that the charges against him were of a criminal nature and should be tried by a criminal court rather than a departmental enquiry. The court held that the Government had the right to hold a departmental enquiry as well as to prosecute the petitioner, and there was no arbitrary or discriminatory exercise of power in proceeding with the departmental enquiry first.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed on all grounds urged by him. The orders of suspension and revocation of leave preparatory to retirement were found to be valid, and the court upheld the Government's actions. The allegations of mala fide were not established, and the court found no violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.

---