DESAI,C.J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This petition involving the question of constitutionality of Art. 465 of the Civil Service Regulations which came up for hearing before our brother Oak has been referred by him to a larger bench on account of conflict of decisions on the question. In the petition Abdul Ahad seeks certlorari for the quashing of an order passed by the Superintendent of Police Bareilly, on 17-4-1961 compulsorily retiring him from the post of a Head constable and mandamus requiring the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police not to terminate his services.
(2.) THE petitioner was enrolled as a constable in the police force under the Police Act, 1861, in 1933, was promoted as a head constable in 1945 and was confirmed in that post in 1947. He was fortyeight years old when the impugned order was passed against him. Section 2 of the Police Act lays down that pay and all other conditions of service of members of the subordinate ranks of any police force shall be such as may be determined by the State Government. In exercise of this power the State Government in 1944 made the following rule for compulsory retirement before the age of superannuation of subordinate police officers : "The Inspector General of Police may, without assigning any reason, order the compulsory retirement of any police officer of the rank of inspector or below in the United Provinces Police, who has completed 30 years service qualifying for pension. No claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. The Inspector General of Police shall exercise the power of compulsory retirement only when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of an officer. This rule was contained in G. O. No. 846 dated 9-9-1944 and the G. O. made it clear that it was to apply to all the subordinate members of the police force irrespective of the date on which they entered the service of Government. The rule was communicated to alt subordinate members of the police force and also published in the police Gazette. It was amended by the State Government in 1948 and the words "25 years" were substituted for "30 years". The Civil Service Regulations also contained rules regarding superannuation and compulsory retirement; Art. 465 of the Regulations as amended in its application in Uttar Pradesh reads as follows : "(1) A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for 25 years on attaining the age of 50 years; (2) A retiring pension is also granted to a Government servant who is required by Government to retire after completing 25 years or more of qualifying service. Note (1) : Government retains the right to retire any Government servant after he had completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on the account shall be entertained. This right shall only be exercised by Government in the administration department where it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant who has outlived his usefulness. Note (2) : The Inspector General of Police Uttar Pradesh may exercise the power vested in the Government in respect of compulsory retirement of constables and head constables subject to the conditions laid down in Note (1)." Note (1) of Art. 465 originally contained the words "Government retains an absolute right to retire", but by a subsequent amendment the word "absolute" was deleted. The alterations in original Art. 465 were made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in 1945 and later in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by S. 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act and Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. He seems to have made these alterations in order to bring the article in conformity with the rule made by him in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 2 of the Police Act. On November 7, 1960, the Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, where the petitioner was employed, recommended his compulsory retirement saying that there were three entries of misconduct and seven entries of petty punishment in his character roll, that his integrity certificate for 1958 had been withheld, that he was found to be careless in 1959 and that the entries showed that he was gradually going off the rails and was "not considered fit for further retention in service". He had completed 27 years of qualifying service. The recommendation was on the prescribed form. The Deputy Inspector General of Police through whom the recommendation was made by the Superintendent of Police made the following endorsement on the form on 28-11-1960 : "I agree with the Superintendent of Police. The Head Constable has outlived his utility and is a very fit case for compulsory retirement." The Inspector General of Police on 27-12-1960 approved of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police and directed that he relieved immediately and would be granted four months leave preparatory to compulsory retirement. The Superintendent of Police on 2-1-1961 communicated the Inspector General of Polices order to the petitioner and the petitioner represented against it on 14-1-1961 and 7-2-1961. The representations were rejected by the Inspector General and he was asked on 30-3-1961 to submit an application for leave preparatory to compulsory retirement. The petitioner did not ask for leave preparatory to retirement and on 17-4-1961 the Superintendent of Police ordered him to be relieved on compulsory retirement with effect from 7-5-1961. Thereupon the petitioner filed this petition.
(3.) THE grounds urged in support of the petition are that the order of compulsory retirement amounts to "removal" within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, that he was not informed of the reason for the removal, that no charge had been framed against him and the provisions of Article 311 had not been complied with and that Articles 465 and 465-A of the Regulations are ultra vires the Constitution.;