Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff joined the police service as a Head Constable and at the date of the compulsory retirement was serving as a Sub -Inspector. He was retired compulsorily by the Inspector General of Police, Pepsu, and the order of retirement was communicated to him by the Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, on 13th February, 1956. The plaintiff -respondent treated this order as an order of removal and brought the present suit challenging the same and prayed for a declaration that the orders of the Inspector -General of Police and the Superintendent of Police were illegal and that the plaintiff always continued as a Sub -Inspector of Police and was not legally and compulsorily retired from service.
(2.) THE allegations of the plaintiff were denied and it was stated that the plaintiff was granted pension by the Inspector -General of Police for rendering more than 25 years approved service and that the order of compulsory retirement was in every way justified and did not amount to removal from service. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and an appeal by the State was also dismissed. The lower appellate court while disposing of the appeal stated that the only point for consideration was whether the impugned order was a mere order of retirement or it amounted to an order of removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The learned Judge found as a fact that the order of removal was passed because he had been found guilty of misconduct. It was further found that the plaintiff was not awarded full pension and gratuity to which he was entitled under the rules and therefore the order of retirement visited the plaintiff with penal consequences. The pension and gratuity were admittedly reduced because of the imputations made against the plaintiff in the order of retirement. In this connection it will be advisable to reproduce the Inspector -General's order compulsorily retiring the plaintiff. That order is Exhibit P. 9 and is in these terms : Offg : S.I. Beant Singh No. 43/A has shown serious deterioration in recent years. He got an unsatisfactory report on his working for the year 1952 -53. A warning thereon was issued to him and his acknowledgment is on record in his personal file. His work in police -station Julana during the second half of 1953 was found to be of a very poor type. He was warned about it and his acknowledgment is on record in his personal file. In the report on his working for the year 1954 -55 he was described as dishonest, unreliable and otherwise hopeless in many respects. The District Magistrate went on to say that this officer always did discredit to the police administration. In view of these facts and unsatisfactory work of Offg. S.I. Beant Singh, I do not think it is in public interest to retain him in service. I, therefore, order that he should be retired compulsorily under article 9.1 of PSR with immediate effect. It will be apparent from the plain reading of this order that the compulsory retirement order was by way of punishment. Moreover it is also evident from Exhibit P.W. 1/2 that the pension and the gratuity due to the plaintiff was not paid in full but was reduced for the reasons for which he was compulsorily retired. It is also significant that before the lower appellate Court it was not denied that the plaintiff was not awarded full pension and gratuity to which he was entitled under the rules. In this situation the present case is covered by the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1305. The relevant part of the observations of the Supreme Court is as follows : Two tests had to be applied for ascertaining whether termination of service by compulsory retirement amounted to removal or dismissal so as to attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The first is whether the action is by way of punishment and to find that out the Court said that it was necessary that a charge or imputation against the officer is made the condition of the exercise of the powers; the second is whether by compulsory retirement the officer is losing the benefit he has already earned as he does by dismissal or removal. Both these tests are satisfied in this case.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.;