Gulati, J. - (1.) THE respondent, Dr. R.S. Gupta, was compulsorily retired by an order dated November 8, 1973. At that time he was holding the post of Chief Medical Officer, Basti. He challenged that order by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion. A learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the order of compulsory retirement. The State has come up in appeal.
(2.) THE State Government under Note (1) attached to Regulation 465-A can retire a Government servant after he attains the age of 50 years without assigning any reason by giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. Such decision shall be taken by the Govern ment in the Administrative Department if it appears to it to be in public interest. It is under this provision that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed. The respondent had challenged the order of compulsory retirement on three grounds: (i) that the or der was mala fide inasmuch as it had been manoeuvred by Dr. D. N. Sharma, Director of Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow who core an ill-will against him, (ii) that the order was against the G.O. dated November 2, 1973 and (iii) that the order was arbitrary. The learned Single Judge turned down the first contention on the ground that the allegations of mala fide had been denied by Dr. Sharma and there was nothing on the record to show that the im pugned order had been passed at his instance. The remaining two grounds were accepted by the learned Single Judge. He found that the Government had not kept in view the G.O. of November 2, 1973 and that there was no material on record to warrant the impugned order. It was found that the petitioner had a very good academic career and had been promoted from time to time and was allowed to cross the efficiency bars. The adverse entries given against the res pondent were of no consequence.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the Government has issued G.O. dated November 2, 1973 which lays down that a Government servant will be considered for compulsory retirement only under two conditions: (1) that his in tegrity was doubtful and (2) that his efficiency had gone down beyond improvement. This G.O., in our opinion, embodies a test for deter-"mining whether or not it would be in public interest to retire a govern ment servant prematurely. The test has been laid down by he Govern ment for its own guidance as well as for the guidance of its subordi nate officer who have to deal with the question of compulsory retire ment of Government servants. Unless either of these two conditions exist it would not be considered in public interest to retire a Government servant from active service.;