JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:— An order of premature retirement following close upon the heels of promotion and appointment to a coveted selection post is bound to perplex any right thinking man and make him wonder whether the right hand knows what the left hand has done. If in the month of May a Government servant is found to possess such high merit and ability, which naturally includes integrity, as to entitle him not merely to be promoted to a selection post but to be appointed to a very responsible and much desired post in that cadre, what could have happened between May and September to merit his being weeded out altogether from service in September under the rule which enables the Government to retire a Government servant in the public interest after he has attained the age of 50 years or after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service. One would expect that some grave and grim situation had developed in the interregnum, to warrant the pursuit of such a drastic course. But surprisingly, we found nothing whatsoever had happened in this, case during that period. Let us look at the totality of the facts.

2. The appellant appears to have had quite a noteworthy career. Starting at the lowest rung as a Lower Division Clerk in 1953, he was promoted as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in 1954, next as a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in 1957, then as a Joint Commercial Tax Officer in 1962, thereafter as a Commercial Tax Officer in 1966, later as an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in 1972 and finally as a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 7-5-1975. On promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes he was posted as Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the same cadre. On Sept. 20, 1975, he was retired under Fundamental Rule 56 (d). His Service Book shows that he had an excellent record of service. He had earned several encomiums, commendations and appreciations. The several promotions gained by him reflect his good record of service. But there was one dark spot. In 1969 when he was working as Commercial Tax Officer it was noted in his Confidential file by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as follows :

"This Commercial Tax Officer is a very intelligent and capable officer who kept the entire district under his control in perfect discipline. Unfortunately, his reputation is not at all good. There were complaints that he used to threaten dealers and take money. The entire matter is under investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department".

There was an enquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. Charges were framed against the appellant by the Board of Revenue. The explanation of the appellant was obtained. The Full Board of Revenue then reported that the charges should be dropped. The Government accepted the report of the Full Board and dropped the charges making the following order on 29-11-1974 :-

"As the preliminary enquiry disclosed a prima facie case of corruption, a detailed enquiry was taken up by the Directotate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Out of eleven allegations levelled against Thiru D. Ramaswami, seven allegations were not substantiated, in the enquiry made by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The Government, examined the report of the Directorate and considered that there was a prima facie case in respect of certain allegations and this was sufficient to proceed against Thiru D. Ramaswami. The Board of Revenue (CT) was therefore requested to frame charges straightway as for a major penalty against Thiru D. Ramaswami on the basis of allegations levelled against him. The Board accordingly framed charges against him in respect of allegations substantiated, obtained his explanation and sent its report thereon. The Full Board considered that all the charges framed against Tiru D. Ramaswami in consequence of the detailed enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department cannot be pursued and proved. The Full Board has therefore expr