The pendency of an appeal against the punishments does not bar the Appointing Authority from exercising the power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 (c) of the U. P. Fundamental Rules.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought relief of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16. 9. 2005 passed by the Inspector General of Registration, U. P. , Allahabad, contained in annexure-13 of the writ petition whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service while working on the post of Sub-Registrar, Nagina, Bijnor in purported exercise of power conferred by Rule 56 (c) of U. P. Fundamental Rules contained in Vol. II Part 2 to 4 of u. P. Financial Hand Book and further relief of certiorari was asked for quashing the order dated 12. 9. 2003 passed by Inspector General of Registration, U. P. Allahabad, contained in Annexure-9 of the writ petition whereby four penalties were inflicted upon the petitioner and further a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus was sought for not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Sub Registrar and to pay him regular salary month to month on the said post.

( 2 ) THE relief sought in the writ petition rests on allegation that petitioner was appointed as Sub registrar on 15. 4. 1989 by the Inspector General of Registration after due selection by U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad. In pursuance thereof he joined the post and since then he is continuously working on the said post and on successful completion of the period of probation the petitioner was also confirmed on the said post within due course of time. During the entire service career he was posted at different places and is presently posted in district Bijnor since 18. 9. 2003. During the period 1997 to July 2002 the petitioner was posted as Sub Registrar in district Hathras. Except the penalties awarded against the petitioner vide order dated 12. 9. 2003 the petitioner has never been awarded any adverse entry in his character roll nor any disciplinary action has ever been taken against him. In August 2002 he was transferred and posted in District agra. While he was working at district Agra he was placed under suspension vide order dated 31. 8. 2002 issued by Inspector General of Registration. Thereafter a departmental charge sheet dated 17. 9. 2002 issued by Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Aligarh levelling two charges against the petitioner was served Upon him. Shortly thereafter another charge sheet dated 29. 10. 2002 containing one further charge against the petitioner was served upon him. The petitioner replied the aforesaid charges by means of his reply dated 12. 10. 2002 and 23. 12. 2002 respectively. After submissions of reply to the charge sheet the inquiry officer has called upon the petitioner to make oral reply of certain questions placed before him. This was done with regard to first charge sheet on 19. 10. 2002 and with regard to the second charge sheet on 28. 12. 2002. Apart from the aforesaid dates on which some questions were placed to the petitioner orally no other date was fixed by the inquiry officer for conducting any disciplinary proceeding. It is specifically stated that no evidence of any kind was led before the inquiry officer either documentary or oral in support of the charges contained in the charge sheets. In fact the inquiry officer did not examine a single witness even for proving the documents relied upon against the petitioner and the petitioner was afforded no opportunity to lead any oral evidence in support of his defence. In spite of the aforesaid facts the inquiry officer proceeded to submit inquiry report dated 24. 10. 2002 and 8. 1. 2003 holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him by finding mat out of three charges two charges have been fully proved and one charge has been partly proved against him. Based upon the aforesaid two inquiry reports the inspector General of Registration issued a show cause notice to the petitioner forwarding therewith the copies of two inquiry reports and calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections against the inquiry report and show cause as to why a ma