1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner had joined the Karnataka State Judicial Service as a Munsiff of 18.2.1987. He was promoted by selection to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the year 1997 and as a District and Sessions Judge on an ad-hoc basis during the year 2003. He had served at various places in the State of Karnataka. When he was working as a District and Sessions Judge at Karwar, where he was posted in March 2009, by an order dated 15.5.2009, the judicial work entrusted to the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner made two representations to the second respondent, after he found that his name was recommended for compulsory retirement. However, by a Notification dated 23.6.2009, the petitioner, alongwith fourteen other Judicial Officers, was permitted to retire in public interest under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCSRs’ for brevity) and he was relieved from service on the afternoon of 24.6.2009. He was aged 53 then. The petitioner had filed a review petition seeking reconsideration of the order. He had also made a representation dated 29.6.2009 to the Governor of Karnataka. The same not having evoked any response, the petitioner is before this court.

3. It is contended that the Notification, by which the petitioner has been permitted to retire, purportedly in public interest, is clearly illegal and is contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The KCSRs are framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Proviso to Article 309. They are subject to other provisions of the Constitution of India. In terms of Article 310, a Civil Servant holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. Article 311 prescribes the conditions which are to be satisfied before the dismissal of a Civil Servant or removal from service, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The combined reading of Articles 309, 310 and 311 indicates that the Rules made thereunder are subject to doctrine of pleasure, which itself, is subject to the limitations imposed under Article 311. Therefore, while invoking Rule 285(4) of the KCSRs, it is obligatory on the part of the competent authority to follow the procedure prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is contended that the impugned Notification is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is urged that the meaning ordinarily attributed to the word “dismissal” is “to let go” or “to be rid of” of “to dismiss”, in other words, “to take away from the position occupied”. Therefore, the effect of removal or dismissal of one from his office is to discharge him from that office. This would take within its fold premature retirement. By that token of reasoning, it is urged that a reasonable opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to show-cause against the proposed action. It is contended that the petitioner has a legal right to continue in service as a Judicial Officer till he attains the age of 60, the age of superannuation, subject to the conditions prescribed under Rule 95-A of the KCSRs. In other words, the second respondent, as on the relevant date, ought to have assessed and reviewed the petitioner’s record for continuing his service beyond 58 and therefore, review of the petitioner’s service, prior to his attaining the age of superannuation, is a direct deprivation of his right to continue as a Judicial Officer as the age of superannuation of Civil Servants in the State of Karnataka is 60 since the year 2008. Whereas the State has chosen to apply the Rule mechanically in purportedly permitting the petitioner to retire in public interest on a mere recommendation by the second respondent. Compulsory or Premature Retirement is one of the known modes of termination of employment at the discretion of the appointing authority. it is a determination of serv