GUR PRATAP SINGH BEDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The compulsory retirement of the appellant, by the first respondent, the State of Punjab by Exhibit A, dated January 11, 1974 was challenged before the High Court but rebuffed with merited brevity after the Court called for the reply of the respondents. The disappointed official has, by securing special leave under Article 136 come up before this Court and urged in his appeal two weak grounds which are too jejune to justify any course other than dismissal.

(2.) The facts - The appellant joined government service as an Excise Officer in 1944 and spiralled up over the years from the rank of Sub-Inspector to that of Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer. Probably his record of service was not nullied but, in his later years in office since 1970 his record was a mixed one. Eventually when he was about to attain the age of 55. Government exercising its power under Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, gave three months' notice of retirement on the termination of which the order read:

(3.) The Grounds - Counsel for the appellant attacked the validity of the order Ex. A under two heads. He first contended that rule 5.32 of the relevant rules was quoted in the order but in the counter affidavit of the State in this Court it was mentioned that the order was not passed under the rule. The second ground pressed was one of mala fides of the second respondent, the Commissioner of Excise, at whose instance according to the appellant, entries of bad record were made in his service sheets.