- (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 6-11-1976 passed by the Services Tribunal rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23-5-1975 retiring him compulsorily from Government service. He was appointed as Naib Tahsildar on 11th June 1942 and was confirmed as Deputy Collector on 29-12-1969. He was to attain the age of fiftyfive years on 1-7-1974. Six months prior to this date the petitioner's character roll and overall peformance was scrutinised and it is alleged in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that "the Government decided to continue him in service in public interest", and he was posted on a special post as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He was awarded first prize for Small Saving Drive during 74-75 and was given a certificate by the Collector on 14-3-1975. On 11-6-1975 his services were appreciated in wheat procurement drive. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government these allegations are not denied but the basis to review and retire the petitioner prematurely is disclosed in paragraph 18 thus: "It is true that the petitioner's case was considered in August 1974 and he was allowed to continue beyond the age of 55 years. Subsequently, however the petitioner was again awarded adverse entry for the year 1974-75 with a view to tone up the administration of the State and chop off dead wood from the administration a decision was taken by Government to appoint High Power Screening Committee in 1975 for evaluating the assessment and performance of the officers who had crossed the age of 50 or 55 years more vigorously and considering whether their retention in service would be in public interest. The High Power Screening Committee consisted of very senior and responsible officers of the Government. The said Committee considered and assessed performance of all the officers and came to the conclusion that it was in public interest that the petitioner be retired from the service. The recommendation of the High Power Committee was accepted by the Government and upon acceptance of the said recommendation the impugned order of retirement of the petitioner was passed."
(2.) The Tribunal held that the G. O. dated 26-11-1969 which prescribed the criteria that if integrity certificate of a Government servant is withheld even once in ten years or if his work and conduct is not found above average during last ten years then the retirement should be in public interest stood superseded by amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U. P. Act No. 24 of 75 and therefore the Government was competent to retire the petitioner prematurely 'if it appeared to the said authority to be in the public interest.' It also found no substance in the contention that in view of G. O.dated 26-8-1975 issued by the Government after amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 there was a bar to reconsidering the cases of Government servants about whose retention, in service, a decision had already been taken. The plea of discrimination was repelled on the theory of absolute discretion with right to pick and choose.
(3.) As the Tribunal did not record a clear finding whether the exercise of power was arbitrary or not we sent for the record to satisfy ourselves whether the challenge made by petitioner in this regard had any merit. We are constrained to observe that after looking into the record we fell deeply anguished to find that though the Government in appointing a high power committee of senior responsible officers reposed confidence in them but the manner in which the responsibility has been discharged exhibits a complete lack of application of mind and of the basic principles explaining from time to time the scope of the words 'public interest' in relation to the question of compulsory retirement of Government servants.;