Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 3.6.2011 and 3.3.2010 (Annexures 1 and 2) passed by O.P.Nos. 2 and 3 which the petitioner’s appeal/representation has been dismissed and removed from service respectively.

3. Facts in brief of the present case as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Collection Amin placed under suspension by order dated 1.7.1999 and Tehsildar Bighapur has been appointed as Inquiry Officer by the competent authority/Up-Ziladhikari, Bighapur, District Unnao/O.P.No. 3. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 15.7.1999 has been issued to the petitioner, served on 12.8.1999 to which he submitted his reply and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer has submitted the Inquiry Report without fixing date, time and place for holding a disciplinary proceeding, so the inquiry report is in contravention to the principals of natural justice, contrary to law.

5. After receiving the inquiry report, from the inquiry officer, the punishing officer/O.P.No. 3, as per the provisions as provided under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule, 1999) taking into consideration the charges leveled on the petitioner are not grave in nature which warranted for any major punishment as provided under the Rule, 1999,passed an order dated 3.1.2002 by which petitioner has been compulsory retired from service and post retiral dues has been paid to him.

6. Thereafter, when the petitioner’s matter for payment of pensionary benefit came to consideration before competent authority, the said authority by letter/order dated 28.2.2006 raised an objection that as the petitioner has not completed the requisite age for compulsory retirement as per Fundamental Rule 56 © and he has competed only the age of 49 years 03 months and 20 days at the time of passing of orders dated 3.2.2002, so he cannot be compulsory retired from service.

7. In view of the abovesaid development Secretary, Board of Revenue wrote a letter and a Government Order dated 4.6.2009 have been issued for cancellation of the order dated 3.1.2002 passed by O.P. No. 3 by which the petitioner has been compulsory retired from service. The relevant portion of the Government order dated 4.6.2009 is reproduced hereinbelow:

Þ¼2½ Á’uxr vkns’k fnukad 3-1-2002 dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds mijkar pqdh Jh egsanz flag vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) xaHkhj vkjksi vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh ds QyLo:I fl) ik;s FksA vr% Ádj.k esa tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds vk[;k ds Lrj ds iqu% u, fljs ds dk;Zokgh djrs gq, ftykf/kdkjh@fu;qfDr Ákfèkdkjh fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr vkns’k ikfjr djsAÞ

8. In pursuance to the said facts, the competent authority/O.P.No. 3 issued an order dated 27.11.2009 in which 8 charges were leveled against the petitioner, the suspension order of the petitioner dated 1.7.1999 passed earlier was continued and Teshsildar Bighapur appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry, the operative portion of the order dated 27.11.2009 is reproduced hereinbelow :

Þek0 ifj”kn ds i= la0 206@ 2&laxzg&4@2007 fnukad 3-4-2007 ,oa ‘kklukns’k la0 544@1&7@2009&7@ 2009&04 lh0 D;w0@2007 jktLo vuqHkkx 7 fnukad 4 twu 2009 ds Øe esa Jh egsanz flag vfuok;Z lsok fuo‘r laxzg vfeu&fu0 dk;Zokgh fnukad 3-1-2002 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA Jh egsanz ds fo:) mijksDr lanfHkZr vkjksiksa ds Øe fuyEcu Ápfyr j[krs gq, rglhynkj fo?kkiqj dks tk¡p vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA ftlds lEcU/k esa fuyfEcr deZpkjh ds fo:) iwoZ esa yxk;s x, vkjksiksa fd vfoyEc tk¡p dj ,d i{k ds vanj tk¡p vk[;k ÁLrqr djsa rkfd mfpr fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsAÞ

9. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by O.P.No. 3, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Wr