SANGHVI P S Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is prayed that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner on 27 August 1966 be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Aerodrome Officer by the Government of India on 28 March 1942. He was confirmed with effect from 4 November 1947. He was promoted to the po3t of Aerodrome Officer and was confirmed on that post in June 1957. In February 1960, he was posted at Agartalla (Tripura ). There, he received several adverse entries from the Director-General of Civil Aviation. The petitioner made representations against them, but the same were rejected. The petitioner made certain allegations against the Director-General that he was harassing the petitioner and maligning his career. In 1964, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on account of certain allegations against him. Thereafter, a charge sheet was served on him on or about 28 August 1965 under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. On 5 August 1966, the petitioner gave his explanation to the charges. During the pendency of these proceedings, the impugned order was passed on 27 August 1966. The order stated: Under the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (j) the President hereby gives notice to P. S. Sanghvi, a permanent senior Aerodrome Officer in the Civil Aviation Department that he shall stand retired from service with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of service of this notice on him. The petitioner made a representation against this order, but the same was rejected on 18 November 1966. A prayer for review was also refused on 27 December 1966.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the Fundamental Rule 56 (j), This provision lays down: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant after he has attained the age of fifty-five years by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing. It was urged that this rule violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since an order could be passed under this rule on the basis that retention of the service of a Government servant was not in the public interest, it cast stigma on the Government servant and as such it amounted to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution; and since the rule did not require an opportunity to show cause to be given before an order was passed, it was invalid. It was also urged that a proceeding for compulsory retirement under this rule would attract the principles of natural justice. The Government servant would be entitled to an opportunity of explanation. All these points have been considered by me in the case of Chhail Behari Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 543 of 1967 dated 12 February 1968 in connexion with the validity of note 1 to Article 465-A of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service Regulations. Under that provision also, a Government servant could be retired whore it was in the public interest to dispense with his services. For the reasons mentioned in that judgment, all the abovementioned submissions cannot be accepted.