IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14875 of 2007 Udai Kumar Mishra @ Udaya Kr.Mishra, son of Late Ram Nath Mishra, resident of village- Ezra, P.S. Sangrampur, District- East Champaran ……. Petitioner Versus 1.The Patna University, through its Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna 2.The Vice Chancellor, Patna university, Patna 3.The Assistant Registrar, Patna University, Patna 4.The Head of Department Zoology, Patna University, Patna …… Respondents ----------- 5. 10/08/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the office order contained in Memo No.1787 dated 27.9.2007 issued by the respondent Registrar, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service in terms of provisions of section 64(B) of Patna university Act, 1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground for compulsory retirement of the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order is mental imbalance. He submits that earlier petitioner was medically examined in 1997 and the doctor who examined the petitioner had recommended for his continuance - 2 - in service. He also submits that the communications of the university as annexed with the writ application show that there was some allegation against the petitioner of having committed misconduct in his duty. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order casts stigma on the petitioner and is by way of punishment for which no adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner. He also submits that as per provisions of section 64(B) of the Act, for compulsory retirement minimum qualifying service of 23 years in the University or total 27 years of service was sine quo non for an order passed under that section. Learned counsel for the University, in reply, submits that the petitioner was mentally imbalance from much before and due to mental imbalance he committed misconduct in duty by misbehaving with senior officials of the University. He submits that the order does not cast stigma on the petitioner. He also submits that mental imbalance of the petitioner is well established by the recommendation of the doctor made in 1997. But inspite of passage of ten years, as the petitioner did not improve, - 3 - University thought it proper in the interest of administration of the University to compulsorily retire him. He has referred to a letter of the wife of the petitioner, which has been annexed by the petitioner himself as Annexure-9. From a bare reading of the letter, it is apparent that his wife also accepted that petitioner was mentally imbalanced. He has also submitted that the petitioner has admittedly completed 23 years of qualifying service in the University and therefore, he was covered by the minimum period as prescribed in section 64(B) of the Act for exercise of powers by the University. From the impugned order it appears that notices were also issued to the petitioner and his replies to the same were also considered. Documents annexed with the counter affidavit also show that the petitioner was suffering from mental imbalance from much before. In the circumstances, after going through various documents brought on record by the parties, this Court is of the view that no illegality can be found in the impugned order of the University while passing order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner in exercise of - 4 - power under section 64(B) of the Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that since petitioner was compulsorily retired, he is entitled to all pensionary benefits admissible to an employee of the University retiring from service after completing qualifying service. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the University authorities to calculate all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per statutes and rules applicable in the matter and make payment of the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case, any salary of the petitioner admissible to him is also due of the period prior to his compulsory retirement, the same shall also be paid to him along with pensionary benefits as per rules. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)