MAHESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This. appeal brings out sharply the difference between two different theories governing the termination of the services of a civil servant, namely, (a) termination simpliciter because the service is held during the pleasure of the President or the Governor under Article 310, and (b) termination by way of a punishment after compliance with the rules of natural justice embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution.

(2.) The services of the appellant was terminated by way of premature compulsory retirement by the impugned order of 10th May, 1978 under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which is as follows :

(3.) On 10th January, 1978 the Central Establishment Board met and Shri B. P. Srivastava, Inspector-General of Forests who was present explained the proposal to the Board. The Central Board perused the proceedings of the State Screening Committee or the Review Committee and also the confidential roll of the officer. Taking into consideration the facts stated and also the record of the Officer the Board agreed to the retirement of the appellant under Rule 16(3). In view of the pending proceedings the representative of the Ministry was advised to consult the Ministry of Law before serving the usual notice of retirement on the Officer. Subsequently, the Officer was retired by the impugned order which is as follows :