Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The petitioner prays that the order passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 24th November, 1965, compulsorily retiring him from service under Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations be quashed.
(2.) The petitioner entered the U. P. Police Force as a Sub-Inspector in March 1939. In due course he acquired the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1948. In 1963 an enquiry into certain charges was held by the Administrative Tribunal against the petitioner but he was exonerated. The proceedings were dropped. It has been stated that the petitioners second efficiency bar at Rs. 640/ stage was withheld in 1963 on the ground that he did not satisfy the criteria prescribed for crossing it. The petitioner states that though the petitioner was stopped at the efficiency bar for one year, but he has not been permitted to cross it even in 1964, 1965 and 1966. The petitioner made representations but has received no response from the Government so far. On 28th November, 1966, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 24th November, 1966, compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from the date of relief. The order has been passed in exercise of powers under Note 1 to Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations. The order states that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was pleased to dispense with the further services of the petitioner in the public interest. It required the petitioner to retire from service.
(3.) Mr. Jagdish Swarup, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the order of compulsory retirement on the grounds:- 1. The ground for retirement, namely, that it was in the public interest, casts a stigma. An order on that ground would be tantamount to removal from service attracting Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since no opportunity to show cause was afforded to the petitioner, the order was void. 2. Regulation 465A involves serious consequences. A proceeding culminating in such an order would be quasi judicial in nature requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Note 1 to Article 465A confers an unguided discretion in the Government and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The relevant part of Note 1 to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations runs as follows:- "Note 1 - Government retains the right to retire any Government servant after he has completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on this account shall be entertained. This right shall only be exercised by Government in the Administrative Department where it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant who has outlived his usefulness." By Notification No. 0-2-2392/B-910-49 dated 15th July, 1964, the State Government amended the first note by deleting the words "who has outlived his usefulness." Since then, the background upon which an order for compulsory retirement can be passed remains considerations of public interest simpliciter. The further requirement that the Government servant had outlived his usefulness is no longer necessary.;