N V PUTTABHATTA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this appeal by certificate is, whether the order of compulsory retirement dated June 28, 1967 intimating the appellant that it was necessary in the public interest that he should be retired from service with effect from October 15, 1967 in terms of Rule 235 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules read with Note 1 thereto was inconsistent with the rules of natural justice in that the appellant was not informed of the evidence on which the order was based and no opportunity was given to him of being heard and meeting or explaining away the evidence in support of the order, and as such was liable to be quashed. The High Court rejected the writ petition of the appellant in which the above and other contentions were raised by him but as the certificate is limited to the one question mentioned above the other points canvassed before the High Court do not fall for consideration.

(2.) The facts are as follows. The petitioner was a Class-I Health Officer in the Department of Public Health in Mysore State Service in the year 1967. But for the order of retirement which was served on him, he might have continued in service up to December 31, 1971, when he would have attained the age of 55 years. In June 1967, when he had passed the age of 50 years, he was served with an order the text of which is as follows:-

(3.) In the counter-affidavit of the State it was averred that action was taken by the Government on a consideration of the confidential reports submitted in respect of the petitioner and that it was not based on any prejudice or jealousy against him. No opportunity for hearing was contemplated under Rule 285 and the impugned order was not violative of Art. 311 of the Constitution.