Judgment

RAY, J. : - This appeal on special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated November 23, 1988 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8457 of 1988 by the High Court, Patna dismissing the writ petition moved by the appellant assailing the order of his compulsory retirement from service by notification dated October 26, 1988 issued by the Government of Bihar compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from the date of issue of the notification.

2. The salient facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was initially appointed on December 9, 1957 to the post of Industrial Expansion Officer and he was confirmed to the said post on May 15, 1958. The appellant was promoted to the post of Planning-cum-Evaluation Officer, a Gazetted post, on December 19, 1973 because of his excellent service career. The appellant was further promoted to the next higher post of Industrial Economist by notification dated September 24, 1983 with effect from December 19, 1978 in the scale of Rs. 1350-2000/-.

3. Because of excellent character role and merit of the appellant, he was promoted to the next higher post of Joint Director in his original scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2000/- with 20 per cent personal pay for holding such higher post which he held from September 24, 1983 to March 31, 1984. From April 1, 1984 the appellant was provided with the higher post of General Manager under the respondent-State, in its Industries Department.

4. The respondent-State issued a notification on September 16, 1988 promoting a large number of juniors to the higher scale of Rs. 1575-2300/- without considering the case of the appellant.

5. Being aggrieved the appellant filed one representation against his supersession which was made without considering the case of the appellant. The representation was filed on October 7, 1988. In the said representation the appellant brought to the notice of the respondent-State that the service record of the appellant throughout remained excellent, integrity beyond doubt and the appellant was never communicated with any punishment in his service career.

6. While the appellant was awaiting for a decision, the respondent-State issued the impugned notification dated October 26, 1988 compulsorily retiring the appellant from the post of General Manager, District industries Centre, Deoghar under the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code.

7. The appellant claimed that the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement has been issued by the respondent-State on the basis of a memorandum dated October 6, 1988 though in the garb of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, but in fact this has been made as a measure of punishment.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of compulsory retirement passed against him by the respondents, the appellant preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 8457 of 1988 before the High Court, Patna questioning the impugned order on the grounds inter alia that the appellant throughout his 30 years had an exemplary service career and his integrity remained unquestionable, that the appellant was never communicated with any adverse remarks nor any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the appellant, nor any explanation was ever called for. The High Court without at all considering and appreciating the contentions dismissed the writ application by a laconic order.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed.

10. The only crucial question that falls for consideration in this Court is whether the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service has been made by the Appointing Authority in public interest in accordance with Rule 74(b)(ii) (A Bihar Service Code, 1979 or for any oblique motive as an extraneous consideration or by way of punishment casting stigma on the service career of the appellant even though the impugned order was couched in innocuous language.

11. The relevant Rule 74(b) reads as follows:

"Rule 74(b)(i): No