P.K.GOSWAMI, J.

(1) THESE two appeals are by certificate from the Judgment of the full bench of the High court of Punjab and Haryana. Both the appeals question the decision of the High court one by the Judicial Officer and the other by the State government.

(2) THE appellant in Civil 908 of 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the oflicer) was originally a member of the Punjab Civil service (.Judicial branch). He was appoimed as a Subordinace Judge, IV Class, on 27/02/1956. Thereafter he was promoted as a Sub-Judge, First Class, and was duly confirmed. While as a Subordinate Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class in Amioh, district Patiala, the Bar Association of Amioh on 11/05/1965, sent a resolution to the High court levelling certain charges against the officer affecting his integrity and impartiality. The High court ascertained the tacts througn a preliminary enquiry held by the Distnut Judge, apparently, ex parte, at this stage. I hereafter, on the report of the District Judge a regular departmental enquiry was instituted. The officer was suspended oy the government on 6/06/1966, at the instance of the High court. The District Judge, Sangrur, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer on 21/07/1966. He enquired into the charges levelled against the officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and found him guilty of all the charges except one. The High court agreed with the Enquiry Officer and came to a rentative conclusion that the officer should be removed from service.

(3) MEANWHILE, the services of the officer were allocated to the State of Haryana with effect from 1/11/1966.

(4) THE High court recommended to the State government of Haryana to serve a notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution asking the officer to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him. This was done by the State government on 13/03/1967. The officer submitted his explanation through the High court on 20/04/1967. The High court found the explanation to be unsatisfactory and recommended to the government that the officer should be removed from service.

(5) THE State government, although on its own showing, "was inclined to agree with the views of the High court and with the recommendation made by it", however, referred the case to the Haryana public service commission for advice purporting to act under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution. The commission advised that no case had been made out against the officer and that he should be exonerated. The governor accepted the advice of the commission and passed the order on 24/08/1968, reinstating the officer in service with immediate effect. The High court was requested by the government to post the officer on his reinstatement. The High court did not issue any posting order to the officer was it was of the opinion that the order of the government was illegal for the vice of consultation with the public service commission and for accepting its advice disregarding the recommendation of the High court. The High court requested the government to review its order but the government did not take any action on that. suggestion.

(6) SINCE the High court refused to pass any posting order notwithstanding his several prayers the officer preferred in the High court of Punjab and Haryana a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 12/07/1971, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the High court to issue an appropriate order of posting and also for a mandamus directing the government to disburse full salary to the officer including the salary for the period under suspension and other consequential reliefs.

(7) WHILE the writ petition was pending before the full bench, the governor, accepting the recommendation of the High court, passed an order on 16/12/1974, issuing three months notice of compulsory retirement to the officer and the officer thus retired on 18/03/1975, after attaining the age of 55 unde