- (1.) ON 10th June, 1968, the State Government passed the following order:- "In exercise of the powers, mentioned in Note 1 to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations and all other powers in this behalf, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on being satisfied that it is in the public interest to dispense with the further servi ces of Sri R. S. Raizada Sub-Registrar, is pleased to require the said official to retire from service with effect from the date of relief." The petitioner challenges the validity of this order of compulsory retirement on the grounds:- (a) That the order was passed mala fide; (b) That it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (c) That the petitioner had a right to continue in service upto the age of super annuation, namely 58 years, and could not be retired at the age of 55 years. In my opinion, none of the points has any merit.
(2.) THE petitioner alleges that in 1967, the Inspector General of Registration transferred the petitioner from Kanpur to Landsdown. The hill-stations did not suit the health of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Minister concerned. The Minister suggested that the petitioner's transfer to Landsdown would be reconsi dered and he should be given some station on the plains. But, in spite of that, the Inspector General maintained his order. The petitioner's allegation is that the peti tioner's having approached the Minister an noyed the Inspector General, as a result whereof the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed. In the counter-affidavit, these al legations have been denied. It has been stated that when the Hon'ble Minister came to Allahabad, the petitioner saw him, but :he Inspector General was out on tour. The Minister left a message that the posting of :he petitioner at Allahabad be considered. On return from tour, the Inspector General Dontacted the Hon'ble Minister to ensure the instructions. The Minister told him that should pass orders only in the interest of administration. In these circumstances the order of the petitioner's transfer to Lands-down was maintained. The allegation that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed because the Inspector General was annoyed at the petitioner's approaching the Minister has been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had earned a large number of adverse entries. There were a large number of complaints against him. His integrity certificate had also been with held. These were the reasons for which he was retired compulsorily on reaching the age of 55 years. In this state of pleadings, it is not possible to hold that the impugn ed order was passed mala fide.
(3.) THE next point taken by the learned Counsel was that Note 1 to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Article authorises the compulsory re tirement of a Government servant after he has attained the age of 55 years or after completing 25 years of qualifying service, if the appointing authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. It was urged that the public interest was a vague con cept. It did not confer any guidance, and the conferment of an unguided and arbitrary discretion was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This precise point was negatived by a Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Ahad v. Inspector General of Police, AIR 1965 All 142 (FB). It was held that Article 465 does not infringe Article 16 of the Constitution. This Full Bench decision is binding on me. Moreover, a similar Rule for compulsory retirement came up for con sideration before the Supreme Court. In T. G. Shivacharana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 280. Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules authorised the Government to retire a Government servant compulsorily if it was necessary to do so in the public interest. It was held that this Rule did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel re lied upon an unreported decision of a Single Judge of this Court, wherein it was held that Article 465 violated Article 16 of the Constitution. In view of the Full Bench decision of this very Article, the contrary decision of a Single Judge cannot be pre-i If erred.;