M.N. Shukla, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by Sri S.M. Banerji under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-4-1973 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh compulsorily retiring him from service. The relevant part of the impugned order reads as under - "In accordance with Fundamental Rule 56 as contained in the Financial Handbook amended from time to time the Rajyapal has been pleased to order in public interest that Sri Satyendra Mohan Banerji. officiating Excise Superintendent. be required to retire compulsorily from service on the expiry of three months from the service of this notice on him." The allegations in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service as Excise Inspector in the year 1939. For about 26 years he discharged his duties" as an Excise Inspector in various districts and in that capacity won several awards and commendations for good and meritorious work. He was selected to the post of Superintendent of Excise by the Public Service Commission and started functioning in the said post with effect from 18-3-1966. He received annual increments as and when they fell due and the last increment drawn by him was with effect from 18-3-1972. He also crossed the efficiency bar in the scale of Rs. 250-550 at the stage of Rs. 425/- on 18-3-1972. His integrity certificate was never withheld. there was not a single adverse entry in his character roll, his work and conduct had been always above average during the entire tenure of his service and he was physically and mentally fit. to discharge his duties till he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. The petitioner was to complete the age of 55 years on 29-7-1973. Prior to that the Head of the Department, namely, the Excise Commissioner. U.P. recommended his case to the State Government that as his work and conduct were excellent and he was physically and mentally fit he should be permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. The said recommendation was endorsed by the Secretary to Government. Uttar Pradesh. Excise Department. Lucknow. Thereafter the Minister for Excise, presumably not agreeing with the aforesaid opinion, referred the matter to the Appointment Department. The Appointment Department agreed with the recommendations of the Head of the Department and the Secretary. Excise Department and observed that the petitioner may be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 58 years. In the circumstances the impugned- order was manifestly arbitrary and capricious and based on irrelevant and collateral grounds and liable to be quashed.
(2.) The case was contested by the State of Uttar Pradesh and two counter affidavits were filed. The counter affidavit was filed by Sri Bhagwan Singh Under Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Excise Department and the other affidavit was filed by Sri Swami Prasad Singh, the then Excise Minister who was personally impleaded as opposite party No. 2. In the counter affidavits it is not denied that there was no adverse entry against the petitioner, that he had crossed the efficiency bar as alleged by him. that he had secured the last promotion prior to the date of compulsory retirement, that in the circumstances the Head of the Department. Secretary, Excise Department and the Appointment Department favoured the view that the petitioner should be retained in service up to the age of 58 years. The main averment in the counter affidavit of the Under Secretary was that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired in public interest in the exercise of the powers under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and that it was not correct that his work and conduct had always been found excellent. It was further averred that the State Government, while passing the order of retirement toad perused the entire record of the petitioner and it was only when it was satisfied from the material available on the record that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was necessitated in public interest that the order of compulsory retirement was passed. It was denied that the order was passed by the State Government in the colourable exercise of powers or was based on extraneous considerations. Shri Swami Prasad Singh in his counter affidavit stated that the orders regarding compulsory retirement of officers were passed by the Government after scrutinising the record of individual officers and that while judging each individual case of the Government servants of the department he was governed solely by the relevant G.Os. and other considerations required for judging the question of public interest. He did not decide the question of retiring any individual officer on considerations not relevant and other than those which were contained in Government orders. The opinion formed about the petitioner by the opposite party No. 2 was endorsed by the Chief Minister of the State.
(3.) The main contention of the petitioner is that the order is arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations and liable be set aside. The opposite parties, on the other hand, contend that the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily was based on the sole consideration, namely, that it was essential in public interest and was fully covered by the relevant Government Order. I cannot refrain from remarking at the very outset that the counter affidavits in this case have been extremely vague and sketchy. In substance they have merely repeated the assertion that the decision was taken in public interest and was not based on irrelevant considerations or collateral grounds. The fact remains that the actual grounds on which the decision was founded were not traversed in the counter affidavits. This made it necessary for me to look into the character roll of the petitioner and the record relating to his service. The learned Standing Counsel placed before me the aforesaid material at the time of hearing and I have, therefore, been able to peruse the material on which alone the said decision could be based. So far as the counter affidavit of Sri Swami Prasad Singh is concerned it specifically says that in arriving at the decision he was governed solely by the Government orders on the point and the considerations contained therein.;