K R JOSHI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was an officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police and an assistant Commandant, Special Armed Force, Battalion Kamptee, was served by the former Government of Madhya Pradesh with a notice terminating his services three months after the date of receipt of the notice. That notice is dated 4th october 1956, and is said to have been served on the petitioner on 9th October 1956. The notice is in the following terms: "whereas you have completed 30 years qualifying service for pension under Government. And whereas the State Government have decided to retire you from service by giving you three months in pursuance of the provisions contained in Rule 2 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1951. Now, therefore, please take notice that you shall be retired after a period of three months from the date of receipt of this notice by you. " on 7th January 1957, the following order was made by the Government of bombay:

(2.) IT is common ground that the petitioner completed 30 years of service prior to the service of the notice on him. By virtue of Note 1 below Article 466-A of the civil Service Regulation's Government has an absolute right to retire any officer after he has completed twenty-five years' qualifying service without giving any reasons. The Note also states that this right will not be exercised except when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of an officer. The petitioner having completed 30 years' service it was open to the Government to terminate his services on the ground that it was no longer in the public interest to retain him in service. Whether It is in the public interest or not to retain a government servant in service is for the Government to decide and its opinion on the point cannot be challenged before a Court of law.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that from the order of the Madhya pradesh Government, dated 4th October 1956, it does not appear that the petitioner was being retired in the public interest and that therefore the order is bad. But that contention cannot be accepted. The actual provision under which the order retiring the petitioner was passed by the Madhya Pradesh Government was rule 2 (2) of the Pension Rules framed by the Madhya Pradesh Government under article 309 of the Constitution, Under this rule, a Government is empowered to retire a Government servant from service at any time after completing 30 years' qualifying superior service after giving him a notice in writing at least three months before he is required to retire-Under this rule it is not necessary for the government to come to the conclusion that it is necessary in the public interest to order the retirement of a Government servant where such Government servant has completed 30 years' service. In our opinion, after a notice under this rule is given nothing further need be done and at the end of the period stated in the notice, the Government servant on whom the notice was served will stand compulsorily retired from service.