IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14055 of 2008 Date of decision: August 11, 2008 Preet Singh Rathee -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. DC Dhaula, Advocate for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. This petition seeks quashing of order of compulsory retirement dated 2.8.2008, Annexure P.22, passed by way of punishment. Case of the petitioner is that he joined service in the year 1977. After attaining the age of 55 years, he was granted extension for three years which was to expire in November 2009. CWP No.14055 of 2008 However, charge sheet dated 11.5.2007, Anenxure P.12 was issued to the petitioner alleging misuse of power but the Enquiry Officer vide his report Annexure P.13 held that the charge was not proved. The said enquiry report was not accepted and a notice to impose penalty of compulsory retirement was given and after considering reply to the show cause notice, order of compulsory retirement was passed after recording a finding that charges were established. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A perusal of impugned order Annexure P.22 shows that the charges levelled against the petitioner constituted misconduct. Due procedure was followed for disagreeing with the enquiry report and opportunity to meet the reasons for disagreement were given to the petitioner vide show cause notice Annexure P.18. After considering the stand of the petitioner, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. It is well settled that an order of disciplinary authority is not liable to be interfered with unless the same can be shown to be based on no evidence or vitiated by denial of opportunity. The disciplinary authority is not bound by the report of the Enquiry Officer and can take a decision disagreeing with the same. We are unable to hold that order of punishment by way of compulsory retirement is not based on any evidence. No violation of any procedural provision has also been shown. 2 CWP No.14055 of 2008 In view of above, no ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 11, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3