Mitter, J. - (1.) The only point involved in this appeal by certificate is, whether the order of compulsory retirement dated June 28, 1967 intimating the appellant that it was necessary in the public interest that he should be retired from service with effect from October 15, 1967 in terms of Rule 235 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules read with Note 1 thereto was inconsistent with the rules of natural justice in that the appellant was not informed of the evidence on which the order was based and no opportunity was given to him of being heard and meeting or explaining away the evidence in support of the order, and as such was liable to be quashed. The High Court rejected the writ petition of the appellant in which the above and other contentions were raised by him but as the certificate is limited to the one question mentioned above the other points canvassed before the High Court do not fall for consideration.
(2.) The facts are as follows. The petitioner was a Class-I Health Officer in the Department of Public Health in Mysore State Service in the year 1967. But for the order of retirement which was served on him, he might have continued in service up to December 31, 1971, when he would have attained the age of 55 years. In June 1967, when he had passed the age of 50 years, he was served with an order the text of which is as follows:- "Whereas the Government of Mysore is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest that you, Dr. N. V. Putta Bhatta, Health Officer, Class I, working as District Health and Family Planning Officer, Coorg, should be retired from service with effect from the 15th October, 1967. Now, therefore, as required by Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, you are hereby given three months' notice that you shall be retired from service with effect from the 15th October, 1967." He filed his writ petition in the High Court of Mysore in September 1967. The averments in the petition which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows: (a) Paragraph 5 of the petition: "This order which vitally affects my right to continue till I attain the age of superannuation, namely, 55 years, with prospect of becoming the Head of the Department should have been passed only after giving me an opportunity to show cause against it having regard to the rules of natural justice." (b) Paragraph 18 (a) of the petition: "I was not given any chance or opportunity to know the causes for the impugned order on which I am to be retired prematurely. In the absence of any such cause, I assumed that some confidential report or any cause affecting my health may have been considered. On this assumption I made representation to the first respondent (the State of Mysore) through the second respondent (the Director of Health Services)....These representations will show that I was a victim of prejudice of the Directorate of Helath Services...." (c) Paragraph 22 of the petition: "After the impugned order was passed I got two confidential reports....One of these reports stated that I require guidance, that I had no initiative and not fit to hold any executive post and that I was in the habit of divulging Government information without the permission of the Government. The second report of 1966 stated that I was a conceited, incompetent and irresponsible officer and that I was slow in disposing of the official matters and that I was not amenable to superior officers....These confidential reports were sent to me on 1-9-1967....I had to make representation against these false allegations. (d) Paragraph 23 of the petition: "It will thus be seen that in the back-ground of the confidential report for 1966 that I must be retired or retired from service without any opportunity to me, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order, therefore, is violative of Art.311 of the Constitution since it is clearly based on the 1965 confidential report.....I, therefore, submit that on vague and unsupported charges my career is sought to be blocked which should have been otherwise promising."
(3.) In the counter-affidavit of the State it was averred that action was taken by the Government on a consideration of the confidential reports submitted in respect of the petitioner and that it was not based on any prejudice or jealousy against him. No opportunity for hearing was contemplated under Rule 285 and the impugned order was not violative of Art. 311 of the Constitution.;