C.R. JAWEED PASHA, S/O. C. ABDUL RAZACK Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE AND THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties The fact;; of the case are as follows :

(2.) IT is contended that the Notification, by which the petitioner has been permitted to retire, purportedly in public -interest, is clearly illegal and is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The KCSRs are framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Proviso to Article 309. They are subject to other provisions of the Constitution of India. In terms of Article 310, a Civil Servant holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. Article 311 prescribes the conditions which are to be satisfied before the dismissal of a Civil Servant or removal from service, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The combined reading of Articles 309, 310 and 311 indicates that the Rules made thereunder are subject to doctrine of pleasure, which itself, is subject to the limitations imposed under Article 311. Therefore, while invoking Rule 285(4) of the KCSRs, it is obligatory on the part of the competent authority to follow the procedure prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is contended that the impugned Notification is violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contends that the complaint of the petitioner to the effect that his premature retirement is punitive in nature, under the guise of public interest or that it is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, as being incorrect. It is contended that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner is not violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as it contemplates dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a person employed in a Civil capacity under the Union or the State Government, the impugned action is neither an order of dismissal or reduction in rank and hence Article 311 cannot be pressed into service. It is contended that under Rule 285 (4) of the KCSRs, the right to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation is no longer available. A