RAM DASS SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an officiating Sub-inspector of Police against an order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, dated the 11th January, 1965 (Annexure B), directing his retirement from service with effect from the loth April, 1965. The order was passed in [exercise of the powers conferred by sub-para-graph (2) (a) of paragraph 1 of the Bihar Liberalised Pension Scheme, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the scheme"), which is as follows:

(2.) The order is challenged on two grounds. Firstly, in substance, it amounts to removal from service and, as the provisions of Article 311(2) have not been complied with, it is unconstitutional. Secondly, sub-paragraph (2) (a) of paragraph 1 of the scheme confers unfettered arbitrary power on the competent authority to retire a Government servant, enabling him to discriminate between two Government servants placed in identical situations; hence the said sub-paragraph violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) For both these contentions Mr. Prem Lal relied on the recent judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600. But, in my opinion, that judgment itself is sufficient to completely negative the two contentions raised by him. The question as to whether the compulsory retirement of a public servant, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Service Rules, will amount to removal from service for the purpose of Article 311 of the Constitution, has been considered in several judgments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, beginning with the well known Shyamlal's case (Shyamlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 369). In paragraphs 36 to 50 of AIR 1964 SC 600, their Lordships have reviewed all the previous decisions on that subject. In paragraph 36 they made the following observation: