SHYAMLAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to the High Court of Allahabad under Articles 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ quashing the order made by the President of India on the 17th April 1953 ordering the compulsory retirement of the appellant who had completed 25 years' qualifying service. The High Court by its judgment dated the 1st October 1953 dismissed the application but, as the case involved a substantial question of the interpretation of the constitution, the High Court granted leave to the appellant to appeal to this Court.

(2.) The material facts may be shortly stated as follows:The appellant passed his Civil Engineering degree examination from the Thomason College, Roorkee, in 1922. He stood first in order of merit and carried away the Gold Medal and other prizes awarded to the best student of that year. He was appointed by the Secretary of State of India in Council to the Indian Service of Engineers as an Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from the 20th October 1923. The conditions governing the appellant's terms of appointment promotion, leave, pension, etc., will be found recorded in a letter issued from India Office, London, on the 13th February 1924. A copy of that letter is annexed to the petition filed under Article 226. He was posted in the United Provinces. In 1944 the appellant was promoted to the rank of officiating Superintending Engineer. After the attainment of independence by India a fresh agreement was entered into by and between the appellant, the Governor of the United Provinces and the Governor-General of India on the 16th September 1948 confirming the appellant's terms of appointment contained in the latter of the 13th February 1924. At or about this time the appellant along with several other officers was recommended by the Chief Engineer for confirmation as Superintending Engineer. The appellant, however, was not confirmed but continued to officiate as Superintending Engineer until the time hereinafter stated. On the 4th January 1950 the Public Works Department of the U. P. Government addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Branch, U. P. requesting him to communicate the letter enclosed therewith to the appellant and to ask him to submit as early as possible whatever explanation he might desire to give. The enclosed letter called upon the appellant to show cause within three weeks why he should not be compulsorily retired under the provisions of Article 465A, Civil Service Regulations, as it appeared (1) that he had been making systematic and gross overpayments apparently for no other reason than to benefit the contractors concerned and (2) that he had spent large amounts of public money for his own personal convenience and (3) that he had taken recourse to devious and unscrupulous methods. No less than six instances on which these charges were based were than set out. The covering letter concluded with the following remarks:

(3.) The order of the President which is impugned by the appellant shows that action was purported to be taken in regard to the appellant under Note 1 to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations. Chapter XVIII of the Civil Service Regulations deals with conditions of Grant of Pension. Article 465-A appears in that Chapter under Section V the heading of which is "Retiring Pension". There are two notices appended to the Article of which the first one is important for our present purpose. The relevant part of Article 465-A and Note 1 thereto are set out, below:-