Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. Pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2017,Shri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has produced today, the First Statute of the Rohilkhand University.

2. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and Shri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

Relief :

3. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure No.9) passed by the respondent no.2 in the Appeal under Clause 18.02(4) of the Statute of M.G.P. Ruhelkhand University, Bareilly filed by the respondent no.4 against the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by respondent no.3;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pay the entire retiral benefits including the monthly pension, which is applicable, which became due when the petitioner was compulsorily retired by respondent no.4 on 27.07.2005;

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'lble Court may deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;

(iv) award the cost of petition in favour of petitioner."

Submissions:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:

(i) The entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated since a lawyer was appointed as Inquiry Officer.

(ii) Although a lawyer was appointed as Inquiry Officer and the management was also represented by a lawyer but the petitioner was not represented by a lawyer and as such in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Aggarwal Vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited 1991 (2) SCC 283 (paras 4 and 5), the disciplinary proceedings resulted in a failure of natural justice.

(iii) The Inquiry report was submitted and order of punishment was passed on 27.7.2005 which was not enforceable without the approval of District Inspector of School in terms of para 18.02(3) of the statutes of the University. The approval was declined by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 9.5.2014. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 5.10.2012. The order of the D.I.O.S. dated 9.5.2014 declining to grant approval was set aside by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 12.1.2015. Thus, in any case, even if it is presumed that by order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.1.2015 the approval was granted, yet it was not enforceable since the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 5.10.2012. Thus, the enforcement of the punishment order dated 27.7.2005 with immediate effect was not legally permissible. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till the age of his superannuation and, therefore, denial thereof by the respondent no.4 without any authority of law was wholly illegal. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for the entire salary for the period from 27.7.2005 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 5.10.2012.

5. No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order and submits that in the absence of any guideline in the statutes of the University for appointment of an Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority, the appointment of a lawyer can not be said to be illegal. There is no prohibition in the statutes of the university for appointing a lawyer as an Inquiry Officer. The petitioner has neither raised any objection before the Inquiry Officer against the appointment of a lawyer as Inquiry Officer nor he made any request for being represented or being assisted by a lawyer. In support of his submission he relied upon a decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of The Workmen Represented By Bihar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2003(2) BLJR 1245 (paras 16 and 18).

7. Sri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 Committee of M