The interest of justice and the right to challenge the order of dismissal were central to the Court's decision.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the application seeking leave to implement the final order passed by the disciplinary authority.

A FEW FACTS

3. The appellant, who was a member of the Indian Police Services, to cut the long history short, was served with charges, which was challenged by him in Writ Petition (C) No. 10539 of 2021. There were interim orders passed in the said case in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the High Court, by order dated 30.08.2022, permitted the respondents to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings making it clear, however, that till the next date of hearing, final order if prejudicial shall not be implemented without the leave of the Court and the writ petition itself stood listed on 24th January, 2023. This, in fact, is the order which is the subject matter of SLP (C)No. 15878 of 2022 which we have closed today as infructuous. It is based on the same that the leave was sought to implement the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the appellant from service with immediate effect came to be passed on 30.08.2022 which we notice to be the very same day on which the order was passed in W.P. (C)No. 10539 of 2021 and subject matter of SLP (C)No. 15878 of 2022. But the said order, though with immediate effect, was not to be implemented without the leave of the Court.

4. It is by order dated 07.09.2022 that the Court has passed the order which is the subject matter of the present civil appeal. In the impugned order, in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11, we may notice the following:

'8. Subject proceedings are proceedings impugning the chargesheet issued to the petitioner. As noticed herein above, the entire disciplinary proceedings have concluded and resulted in an order of dismissal.

9. In that view of the matter, without prejudice to the challenge to the charge-sheet in the subject proceedings, respondents are permitted to implement the order. However, it is directed that the order shall not be implemented till 19.09.2022, to enable the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law against the order of dismissal.

11. List on 24.01.2023, the date already fixed.'

5. We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant contend that the Court may protect the appellant. There was no need for such a hurry to pass the order on 30.08.2022 dismissing the appellant. He contends that under the rules, the disciplinary proceedings having been instituted while the appellant was in service, it could have been carried to its logical conclusion even after his retirement. He would submit that the appellant must secure justice. He would submit that even in the writ petition laying a challenge to the article of charges, without amending the writ petition or seeking to lay a challenge against the order of dismissal, the appellant is entitled to relief.

7. Per contra, learned Solicitor General, would point out that, as of today, there is an order of dismissal of the appellant. He joins issue with respect to the impact of retirement of a Government Servant even if proceedings have been instituted prior to the retirement. He submits that there was no hurry in issuing the order dated 30.08.2022. He would further submit that there is no challenge to the order of dismissal as things stand. This is in response to the request of the appellant that the appellant may be protected from the order passed by the disciplinary authority in question. He would submit that it is not as if there is a challenge to the order of the disciplinary authority in the writ petition as what is in challenge is the charges. He next drew our attention to paragraph 9 of the order which we have adverted to hereinbefore. In other words, it is pointed out that the High Court has safeguarded the in