S. ANUP SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, S. Anup Singh, who was a permanent member of the Police service of Patiala and East Punjab States Union and held the rank of Superintendent of Police was retired from service on 29th December, 1951 by the order of the Government under Rule 9(1) read with Rule 251 of the P.S.R. He has come to this Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the order under which he was made to retire was illegal and inoperative, for reasons mentioned in the petition and praying that either the Government be restrained from giving effect to their order by issue of an appropriate writ or any other direction or order which the Court might think proper be made.

(2.) THE petition is opposed by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State on almost all grounds. The learned Advocate General also urged that since the Petitioner did not make any demand for justice to the Government and the latter had no means to consider the same the petition is not maintainable. As we have held today in another case - 'Shambhu Dayal v. Patiala and East Punjab States Union' C.M. No. 208 of 1951 (Pepsu), the rule that a petition for writ does not lie until it is shown that the Petitioner has made a demand for justice to the respondent and the same had been refused, is generally recognised but strictly speaking the operation of it is confined to a writ of mandamus and since in the present case writ of mandamus is neither pressed nor do we think there is any scope for it, the preliminary objection is devoid of force -Moreover by the very nature of the defence raised by the respondent in the written statement and the stand taken by their counsel i.e., Advocate General, in the course of arguments it appears to us that even though the Petitioner, had made a representation to the Government against the order the legality of which he impugns in this Court, there was no chance of the respondent granting him any relief. Accordingly the preliminary objection is overruled,As regards the merits of the petition all the points urged by the Petitioner's counsel against the Government order, with the exception of one that is peculiar to his case, were taken in - 'Shambhu Dayal's petition' C.M. No. 208 of 1951 (Pepsu), in so. far as it related to the Government order by which he was made to retire. Some of those points did not appeal to us but two of them were upheld by us and we found that the order of Shambhu Dayal's retirement was illegal and inoperative. Of these two, one viz., that the compulsory retirement ordered under Rule 9(1) of P.S.R. came within the ambit of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and before it could be made It was incumbent upon the Government to give the Petitioner an opportunity of showing cause against it, applies equally to the present petition.

(3.) THE additional point taken by the Petitioner's counsel in this case was that his client belonged to Class I Service and before Government could order his compulsory retirement they were bound to submit his case to and obtain the orders of His Highness the Rajpramukh under Rule 34 of the Rules of Business and since this was not done the order was illegal. The exact position in the words of the application made by the Petitioner on 4 -3 -1952 was as follows: