- (1.) The appellant was in 1934 first appointed as a police constable in the erstwhile State of Gwalior and was promoted in March 1945 to the post of a Sub-Inspector. In May 1948, the rulers of Gwalior, Indore and certain other States formed, under a covenant executed by them, a new State, called the United State of Madhya Bharat. The appellant was allowed to work as a Sub-Inspector in the new State of Madhya Bharat, but his name was entered from the very beginning, that is from May 1948, in the list of "provisionally absorbed Servants" and remained so during all material times.
(2.) By a notification, dated December 15, 1948, the Madhya Bharat Government published rules, called the "Retrenchment Terms". As revised by another notification dated July 9, 1949, these Retrenchment Terms so far as they are relevant for the purposes of appeal read as under: Government of the United State of Madhya Bharat. * * * * NOTIFICATION After a careful consideration of the T. Mohan Rau Committee's recommendations regarding the retrenchment of surplus staff of the acceding States of the Madhya Bharat Union and compensation terms to be offered to such staff, the Government of Madhya Bharat have been pleased to sanction the following "principles which will govern the selection of Government servants for discharge from service and the grant of compensation to them. Owing to wide diversity of rules elating to leave and pension in force in the various acceding units of Madhya Bharat, the Government are constrained to frame a separate set of rules modelled on the terms sanctioned by the Government of India to their retrenchment personnel. The Government are aware that cessation of employment is bound to cause distress and in order to soften the blow, as far as possible, they have kept in view the need for providing each retrenched servant with a reasonable subsistence which would enable him to tide over the period necessary for building up new associations: 1. Principles to govern the selection of Government servants for retrenchment: (a) The retrenchment should embrace the following categories: (1) Those who have attained the age of superannuation. Note.-The age of superannuation shall be taken as 55 years for government servants in superior service and 60 years for those in inferior service. (2) Those whose record of service is consistently bad. (3) Temporary and officiating Government servants. (4) Those who do not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post held by them. Note:-It will be the right of Government to retain an exceptionally good person even though he may not be possessed of the minimum qualification prescribed. (5) Those who have put in qualifying service for 30 years and more. (6) Permanent Government servants who have less than 3 years' service. (7) Government servants who are treated as surplus to requirements either because the posts held by them have ceased to exist, or because they cannot, for reasons considered adequate by the Government, be absorbed in Madhya Bharat service. * * * * These orders shall have effect from the 1st of July, 1948."
(3.) While the appellant was working at Bhilsa as the Sub-Inspector, he received an order signed by the Deputy Inspector-General, Central Range, to the effect that the appellant was "retrenched.......for consistent bad record under retrenchment category 2" of the said Retrenchment Terms. The order, how- ever, informed the appellant that he would be given all the benefits of leave, pension etc. due to him under the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector-General of Police. The Inspector-General issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the said order should not be made absolute under category 2, as also under categories 4 and 7 of the said Retrenchment Terms. The appellant submitted his explanation showing cause. By his order, dated January 2, 1954, the Inspector-General rejected the appeal and confirmed the said order, also under categories 4 and 7 of the said Terms, that is, be sides the ground of a consistently bad record, also on the ground of the appellant not possessing the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, and the ground that the appellant, for reasons considered adequate by the Government, could not be absorbed in the Madhya Bharat service.;