- (1.) Respondent Anand Swaroop was an employee in the Post and Telegraph Department. He was compulsorily retired under clause (j) (i) of Fundamental Rule 56 under which a Government servant can be retired in public interest on attaining the age of 50 years. He moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of a writ petition No. 299 of 1973. This petition has been allowed by Hon'ble D. N. Jha, J. and the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent has been quashed. The Union of India, the Post and Telegraph Board and the Director Postal Services (Central) U. P., Lucknow are aggrieved and have preferred the present Special Appeal.
(2.) The respondent Anand Swaroop entered the service of the Government of India in the Post and Telegraph Department in the year 1938. He passed departmental examinations and was promoted as Inspector and was later appointed as Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices. He was confirmed on that post. Thereafter on 5th January, 1963, the Director General Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department appointed him in Class II service in the grade of Postal Superintendents. With effect from 11th October, 1972, he was promoted as Assistant Director Postal Services (Enquiries) in U. P. Circle. He was holding that post when the order of compulsory retirement was passed against him.
(3.) It appears that the Government of India constituted a Review Committee consisting of the Secretary of Communications as Chairman and Sri R. N. Chopra, Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, to review the cases of Class I and Class II (Gazetted Officers) in the Ministry of Communications for retention beyond the age of 50 years. The Review Committee met on 25th July, 1972, and it considered the cases of 81 officers belonging to Posts and Telegraphs Department and recommended that they should be retired in public interest. The respondent was one of such officers. The recommendations of the Review Committee were approved by the Chairman on behalf of the Posts and Telegraphs Board and the same were also approved by the Minister of Communications on 14th November, 1972. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that he had unblemished record of 34 years service except for a strav entry of censure which was awarded to him in September, 1971. As a result of this entry he was held up at the efficiency bar which fell due on 5th January, 1971, but by a subsequent order dated 8th August, 1972, he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with retrospective effect, namely, with effect from 5th January, 1971 and thereafter with effect from 11-10-1972, he was promoted as Assistant Director, Postal Services. The contention of the respondent was that the punishment of censure awarded to him stood wiped out as in spite of that punishment he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and was given promotion. It was further contended on his behalf that the Review Committee although recommended his compulsory retirement in public interest yet it had not disclosed any material on the basis of which such an opinion was formed and as such the opinion formed by the Review Committee was arbitrary. These contentions . prevailed with the learned single Judge and he set aside the order of compulsory retirement. He expressed the opinion, relying upon certain decided cases including a decision of the Supreme Court, that the opinion to retire a Government servant prematurely in public interest must be based upon some material germane to the question of public interest and if no such material existed or disclosed, the decision to retire a Government servant could be struck down.;