Judgment

RAY, J.:- This appeal is by special leave against the judgment dated 20 September, 1968 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the decree passed by the Court of Civil and Sessions Judge in favour of the plaintiff-respondent declaring that the order of removal of the plaintiff-respondent from service is void and is illegal and the plaintiff-respondent should be deemed to be still in service.

2. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of compulsory retirement of the plaintiff-respondent was one of punishment.

3. The High Court came to the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement dated 28 March, 1962 and the letter dated 16 March, 1962 referred to in the order of compulsory retirement and the memorandum dated 14 February, 1962 referred to in the letter dated 16 March 1962 when read together established that the order of compulsory retirement was to punish the plaintiff-respondent.4.

4. The order dated 28 March 1962 was as follows:-

"As per orders contained in the P. H. Q, letter No. IV.780-60 dated 16-3-62 the compulsory retirement of H. C./22 C. P. Shyam Lal is sanctioned. He is retired compulsorily w.e.f. 1-4-62......"

5. The letter dated 16 March 1962 was as follows:-

" U. P. POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, ALLAHABAD-1

No. IV-780-60, dated 16 March, 1962

To

The Supdt. of Police,

Mathura.

Subject: Compulsory retirement of Head Constable Sri Shyam Lal Sharma of the Mathura District Police.

Reference: Your No. P-99 dated Feb, 14, 1962. Your proposal for the compulsory retirement of Head Constable Sri Shyam Lal Sharma is approved. He should be retired compulsorily forthwith and granted four months leave preparatory to compulsory retirement, if he so applied for.

Sd/- M. L. Capoor,

Deputy Supdt. of Police,

HDQRS,

for Inspector General of Police, U. P.

6. The letter P. 99 dated 14 February, 1962 was as follows:-

"To

The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Agra Range

U. P. Camp, Agra.

Subject: Compulsory retirement of Head Constable Shyam Lal Sharma No. 22 C. P, of the Mathura District.

Reference: P. H. Q. endorsement No. IV-569-59 dated 17-1-61.

2. The above named Head Constable has not in 26 years of service and has lost his utility to the Department. He is considered to be a bad lot incorrigible and no longer useful. I recommend his compulsory retirement on proportionate pension w.e.f. 1-4-1962.

3. The proposal for the compulsory retirement of this Head Constable on Police Form No. 61 in duplicate together with his Ch. Roll and the following documents is herewith sent.

P. H. Q. (IV) For n. a. May be sanctioned four months leave preparatory to compulsory retirement. 1. A note containing the charge preferred against the Head Constable.

2. Memo of leave (in duplicate)

3. History of service (in duplicate)

4. It is therefore requested that necessary remarks may kindly be recorded on the proposal and his case be forwarded. to P. H. Q. for issuing orders for his compulsory retirement w. e. f. 1-4-1962."

7. The High Court held that reading the three documents together "there cannot be any escape from holding that the order of compulsory retirement was to punish the plaintiff and nothing else." The High,Court read the proposal dated 14 February, 1962 in this language "recommended for compulsory retirement on proportionate pension w. e. f., 1-4-1962 due to bad record of service as he is considered to be a bad lot incorrigible and no longer useful".

8. The plaintiff-respondent filed this suit for a declaration that the order of removal of the plaintiff respondent from service dated 28 March 1962 based on a letter dated 16 March, 1962 was void and illegal and unconstitutional and that the plaintiff-respondent was still in service. The defence of the State was that the plaintiff-respondent was not retired on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency or incapacity and, therefore, the procedure under Article 311 and Rule 55 of the Civil Service Regula