(1.) In this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement passed against him on 16-6-1978 by the appointing authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra (respondent No. 4). A copy of the impugned order/notice of compulsory retirement has been marked annexure 6 to the writ petition. By this order the petitioner who was a sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant time was communicated that since he had completed 56 years of age and 36 years of service, therefore, he (the petitioner) did not need to remain in Government service any longer. He was accordingly informed that he would be treated as having compulsorily retired with effect from a date there months later than the date of receipt of this notice by the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner received this notice on 2-7-1978.
(2.) The only relevant facts which need be stated for the disposal of this application are these. As I have already stated -earlier, the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police on the date when the impugned order/notice of compulsory retirement was served on him. Even after the service of this notice, the petitioner was admittedly granted an ad hoc promotion as Inspector in the Criminal Investigation Department (C. I. D.). He was posted as such and drew his emoluments as an Inspector. Subsequently however, it came to the notice of the authorities concerned that such an order of ad hoc promotion of the petitioner had been passed in ignorance of the fact that the petitioner had already been served with a notice of compulsory retirement on 2-7-1978. Accordingly, the petitioner was reverted to his original post of Sub-Inspector of Police and was made to compulsorily retire with effect from 2-10-1978, i. e., three months from the date on which the petitioner received the notice. Curiously enough, from the second order which made him to retire compulsorily as is contained in annexure 11 to the second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it appears that he was paid the emoluments of an Inspector up to the forenoon of 2-10-1978 and he was also treated as having retired with effect from the forenoon of 2-10-1978.
(3.) A contention was raised by Mr. S. C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order of compulsory retirement as contained in annexpre 6 ought to be held as based on extraneous considerations and being vitiated in law by malice both in fact and in law because even after the date of service of the notice of compulsory retirement the petitioner was promoted to a higher rank. We are advisably lefraining from going into this question because, as contended by learned Government pleader No. 2, it may as well be that the petitioner's promotion as ad hoc Inspector in the Criminal Investigation Department may have been based upon some misapprehension of fact.