K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Director, postal services, Uttar Pradesh dated 4-9-1975 retiring the petitioner prematurely from service by giving him three months' salary in lieu of period of notice.
(2.) The petitioner was employed as Inspector, Post Offices in the Postal Department of Union of India. On a certain complaint of misconduct against the petitioner a preliminary enquiry was held and witnesses were examined. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Agra Division, issued a charge sheet to the petitioner, containing a number of charges of misconduct and failure to perform duty. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation to those charges. On 2-9-1975 petitioner made application for inspection of documents mentioned in the Charge-sheet. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices rejected the petitioner's application on 5-9-1975. On that very day the Director of postal services, Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of his powers under Clause (b) of Proviso to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, issued orders retiring the petitioner from service. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this petition challenging the validity of the said order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order was passed by way of punishment without giving any opportunity of defence as contemplated by Art. 311 of the Constitution. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the impugned order is a simple order of compulsory retirement, it does not cast any stigma to the petitioner. The order was not passed as a measure of punishment. He further urged that since the order has been issued in unexceptional form, this court cannot go behind the order to ascertain its true nature. Rule 41(1) of the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 confers absolute power on the appointing authority to retire a Government servant in public interest on his completing 30 years of qualifying service. The nature of the power conferred on the appointing authority is the same as conferred on the appropriate authority under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. Normally, if an order of compulsory retirements is passed by the appointing authority retiring a Government servant in public interest and if the order does not contain any words to cast stigma on the Government servant, such an order cannot be treated to be an order of punishment, but where a facts and circumstances, placed before the Court show that in a substance the order is founded on misconduct, it is open to the court to examine the attending facts and circumstances to ascertain the true nature of the order. It is well settled that the form of the order of termination of service or compulsory retirement is not conclusive of its true nature. Many a time, the form may be merely comouflage of an order of dismissal for misconduct. It is open to the court to go behind the form to ascertain the true character of the order. The Supreme Court consistently affirmed this view in S.R. Tewari v. District Board, Agra, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1680 ; State of Punjab v. Sukhraj Bahadur, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1089. State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Misra, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1011 and Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2192 . The respondents contention that the court could not go behind the order to ascertain its true character is untenable.;