2019 (9) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs. By the first prayer, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, whereby, he has been retired from service with immediate effect from the afternoon of 11.06.2019 on completing 50 years of age. The other prayer is to seek damages to the tune of Rupees One Crore towards the alleged violation of his fundamental rights, harassment, mental agony, damage to the social reputation etc. 2. At the onset, Ms. Acharya, ld. Addl. Solicitor General has raised the objection of maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner assails the order dated 10.06.2019, whereby, he has come to be retired in exercise of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel that any of the actions initiated against the petitioner by the respondents were depreciated by the High Court and the Supreme Court in the strongest words and thereby, it was well proven on record that any of the actions including the issuance of the impugned order dated 10.06.2019, which, according to the petitioner, was a stigmatic compulsory retirement, was an act of malice and thus, malafide. In that regard, Mr. Singh, ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner has taken the court to the various observations made by the High Court as also the Supreme Court to contend that the observations made in the diverse judgments of the courts leave no doubt that the acts of the respondents were whimsical, mal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orce the rule of law. Seen in that context, does the subject matter invite invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction by this court, when, for both the reliefs prayed for, alternative remedies under law are available to the petitioner, gets the moot question to ponder upon. More so, when the petitioner insists to maintain the petition in toto and is not prepared to severe one relief from the other. 6. Without adverting to the serious adverse observations made by the courts against the various actions taken by the respondents against the petitioner, last of which is of 13.01.2016, when, the Division Bench of this court decided WP(Crl.) 1401/2002 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. CBI & Ors. etc. and quashed the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and ....