Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The respondent was in the service of the State of Rajasthan and at the material time was a circle inspector. He was compulsorily retired from service on September 3, 1960 under R. 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules). The order for his retirement was communicated to him by the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, on April 11, 1960. The respondent however made representations to the Government and the order was kept in abeyance and was finally put into effect from September 3, 1960, after the Government had rejected the representation. The Government ordered on September 2, 1960 that the order of April 11,1960 regarding compulsory retirement should be put into immediate effect. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and contended inter alia that the Inspector General of Police had no authority to order his compulsory retirement under R. 244 (2) of the Service Rules. He also contended that the order amounted to punishment within the meaning of R. 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Classification Rules), and therefore as it was passed without giving him an opportunity to show cause as required under Art 311 of the Constitution, it was bad.

2. The petition was opposed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and it was contended that an order of compulsory retirement under R. 244 (2) of the Service Rules was not a punishment within the meaning of the Classification Rules, and therefore Art. 311 had no application to it. It was also urged that the order had been passed by the Government and not by the Inspector General of Police, who had merely acted in issuing the order under the direction of the Government. The case of the appellants was that under R. 244 (2) of the Service Rules, the Government had an unqualified discretion to retire any officer compulsorily if it was in the public interest so to do, and provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution would not apply to such an order of compulsory retirement. The appellant s case further was that a high-powered Committee had been set up under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission to consider the cases of all such officers whose retention in public service after twenty-five years of service was not in the public interest and that Committee recommended the compulsory retirement of the respondent. That recommendation was put up before the Home Minister of the Government of Rajasthan, who accepted the finding and recommendations of the Committee. The matter was then put up before the Chief Minister who agreed with the Home Minister and hereafter the Inspector General of Police was directed to order the retirement of the respondent.

3. When the matter came to be heard in the High Court it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that under R. 31 (vii) (a) of the Rules of Business (hereinafter referred to as the Business Rules), all cases of compulsory retirement where the appointing authority is the Government have to be submitted to the Governor and the Chief Minister. As in the present case the matter was admittedly in the present case the matter was admittedly not submitted to the Governor the order of compulsory retirement even if it was made by the Government was not legal as it was against the Business Rules. The reply of the appellants to this contention was that R. 31 (vii) (a) of the Business Rules only applied to that kind of compulsory retirement which was inflicted as a punishment under R. 14 of the Classification Rules and not to other cases of compulsory retirement. The High Court however accepted the contention of the respondent that R. 31 (vii) (a) of the Business Rules applied to a case of compulsory retirement under R. 244 (2) of the Service Rules, and as the papers had not been submitt