Jagmohan Lal, J. - (1.) The petitioner Jagdish Sahai Agnihotri was in the employ of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh as an Excise Inspector. He was compulsorily retired under Rule 465-A of Civil Service Regulations by the State Government under an order dated 17-4-1969 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). He made a representation against that order which was also dismissed by the State Government on 26-8-1969, vide Annexure 12. Being dissatisfied with these orders he filed this writ petition against the State of Uttar Pradesh, Sri R.P. Khosla, the then Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, Excise Department, Smt. Lata Singh, Deputy Secretary to Government in the said department, the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh and the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kanpur Circle, Kanpur. He challenged these orders on various grounds mentioned in the petition, the main ground being that the orders were mala fide and they had been passed at the instance of Sri R.P. Khosla and Smt. Lata Singh. He prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and the issue of a direction or order commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service from the date he handed over charge, that is, 21-4-1969, till he is properly retired on attaining the age of superannuation or his services are legally dispensed with.
(2.) The writ was contested by the opposite parties who filed counter-affidavits. One counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 5 was sworn by Sri Raghunandan Sahai, the then Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kanpur Circle, another counter-affidavit was sworn by Sri R.P. Khosla, the third by Smt. Lata Singh and the fourth by Sri S.K. Chaudhury, the then Excise Commissioner. In these affidavits the factual allegations made by the petitioner to challenge the order of retirement were controverted.
(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide, arbitrary and illegal and that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to show cause before passing this order. Lastly he contended that this order was divorced from the circumstances on the basis of which it could be said that it had been passed in the public interest.;