B.R. Tuli, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner joined service as member of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) from amongst the lawyers in November, 1954. He was selected for the Judicial Branch of the Punjab Civil Service (now Haryana Civil Service) on or about May 1, 1965. He was promoted from the time -scale to the Selection Grade of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from November 15, 1968, was promoted as officiating Additional District and Sessions Judge with effect from April 1, 1970, and was posted at Hissar. He was due to attain the age of 55 years on February 24, 1071, and his case was considered by the High Court whether to recommend his retirement at the age of 55 or to retain him in service till the age of 58 years, which is the age of superannuation prescribed under Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. The High Court was of the opinion that the work of the Petitioner as Additional District and Sessions Judge was not quite satisfactory, especially on the civil side. The Haryana Government was, therefore, informed by letter dated January 22, 1971, that the case of the Petitioner for continuance in service beyond the age of 55 years was considered and on account of his unsatisfactory work as Additional District and Sessions Judge, the Honourable Chief Justice and the Judges were not inclined to recommend his continuance in Superior Judicial Service up to the age of 58 years. The High Court, however, recommended that he may be reverted to his substantive post in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate and should be allowed to continue in service upto the age of 58 years. In that letter, the High Court also pointed out that the work of the Petitioner as a member of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) had been considered to be above average and his - integrity was beyond dispute. The State Government agreed to the recommendation of the High Court for reverting the Petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge to that of Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate but with regard to his retention in service up to the age of 58 years, the High Court was asked to consider whether, in view of the Petitioner's work as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, having been found to be unsatisfactory, he should be retained at all in the service beyond the age of 55 years. To this letter, the High Court sent a reply on April 6, 1971, stating - - The work of the Petitioner as Senior Subordinate Judge Chief Judicial Magistrate will be reviewed after he has worked for six months as such and if he is found wanting, it will be recommended to the State Government to retire him after giving the requisite notice. The Government was requested to communicate the orders for the continuance of the Petitioner in service up to the age of 58 years. On receipt of this letter from the High Court, the State Government considered the matter again and referred the case back to the High Court drawing its attention to the concluding portion of para (iv) of Punjab Government letter No. 4776 -3GS (1) -64/15823, dated 19/21st May, 1964, reading as under: There may be difficulties when a Government employee has been officiating in a higher grade for a long time and it appears unlikely that he would put his heart into his work after reversion. This, however, is a question for which no hard and fast rules can be laid down and each case will have to be considered on its own merits. The State Government, therefore, expressed its view that after the Petitioner's reversion from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge to. the post of Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, he was not likely to work whole -heartedly and, therefore, it would be in the public interest to retire him after giving him three month's notice. The High Court did not agree with this suggestion of the State Government and vide letter dated August 16, 1971, reiterated its earlier view that the Petitioner may be retained in service up to the age of 58 years. The State Government, however, did not agree with the said recommendation of the High Court and decided to retire the Petitioner under Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, after giving him three month's notice. That notice was issued to the Petitioner on August 20, 1971, reading as under: From The Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana. To Shri I. P. Anand, HCS (Judicial Branch),Senior Sub -Judge, Rohtak. Dated Chandigarh, the 20th August, 1971. Subject: Three month's notice of retirement from service of Shri I. P. Anand. Sir, I am directed to say that the Governor of Haryana, in consultation with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has decided that you shall be retired from service in accordance with the provisions of note appended to Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana.
(2.) YOU are, therefore, hereby given notice that on the expiry of three months from the date of the receipt of this communication, you shall retire from service under the Haryana Government. A copy of this notice was sent to the High Court for information and necessary action and another copy was - sent to the Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh. On receipt of this notice, the Petitioner filed the present petition challenging the validity of the notice served on him. 2. The main point of law raised in the petition is that under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the control over the subordinate judiciary vests solely in the High Court and the order for pre -mature retirement of the Petitioner before attaining the age of superannuation that is, 58 years, could be passed only by the High Court and not by the State Government. Since the High Court found him fit to continue in service up to the age of 58 years as Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, the State Government had no power under Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, to issue three months' notice for retiring the Petitioner before attaining that age. The Petitioner has also alleged mala fides of the Government and Shri Bansi Lal, Chief Minister, Haryana, which will be dealt with towards the end of this judgment. The Respondents to the writ petition are the State of Haryana (Respondent 1), the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Respondent 2) and Shri Bansi Lal, Chief Minister, Haryana (Respondent 3).
(3.) WRITTEN statements have been filed by Respondent 1 and Respondent 3 denying the assertions made by the Petitioner as to the competency of the State Government to issue the impugned notice and the mala fides alleged against the Chief Minister. No replication has been filed by the Petitioner.;