The appropriate authority must have a bona fide opinion that it is in the public interest to compulsorily retire a Government servant under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) and the decision must be based on relevant material germane to the issue.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order compulsorily retiring him under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) (i) passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Central Public Works Department, on 30-1-1970 (Annexure V ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner entered service of the Central Public Works Department on 13-1-1943 as Section Officer (Civil) and was duly confirmed with effect from 25-5-1951. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 17-5-1955. He became due for crossing efficiency bar in 1965 at the stage of Rs. 590. 00 in the scale of Rs. 350-900. The matter of his being allowed to cross efficiency bar was held over for two years, since certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at that time. By an order dated 6-7-1966 the Chief Engineer imposed a penalty of withholding two increments having the effect of postponing his future increments on a charge of gross negligence and carelessness in the discharge of his duties which had resulted in pecuniary loss to the Government. However, by an order dated 28-9-1967 the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1-4-1967 though in view of punishment the increment raising his pay beyond efficiency bar was actually given effect from 1-4-1969 instead of 1-4-1967.

( 3 ) IN November, 1965, the petitioner was transferred to Allahabad Central Division and started working under Shri v. P. Gupta, the then Executive Engineer respondent No. 3. After a period of about a year and a half the relations between the petitioner and the said Shri Gupta became strained. It is alleged that Shri Gupta threatened the petitioner with spoiling his confidential report. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 16-10-1967 to Shri Gupta (Copy Annexure 1) alleging that the latter was prejudiced and had threatened as well to spoil his confidential report. By a D. O. letter dated 13-8-1968 the petitioner was communicated adverse remarks in his confidential report for the period 1-4-1967 to 31-3-1968 by the Chief Engineer (Northern Zone ). The petitioner was described in this report, inter alia, that he did not exhibit any technical skill, and was "cunning, evasive and not very helpful", and many other works had to be transferred out of his control due to his negative approach. The Reviewing Officer generally endorsed these remarks. The petitioner represented against these remarks staling, inter alia, that they were the resuit of a bias, bana fide and prejudice on the part of Shri Gupta. These were, however, rejected and the petitioner was informed by the Chief Engineer s letter dated 3-10-1969.

( 4 ) THREAFTER, the petitioner received the notice in question (Annexure V) intimating that he shall retire from service on the expiry of three months computed from the date of service of this notice.

( 5 ) SHRI Kailash Prakash, Director of Administration, Central Public Works Department, filed an affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in opposition to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3, Shri Gupta, also filed his affidavit. The allegations of bona fide, bias or pre judice are denied by Shri Gupta. The facts otherwise are broadly admitted. It is stated that the petitioner has been retired in "public interest", and the Court has no jurisdiction to go into the matter.

( 6 ) IN Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha and Anr. , 1970 S. L. R. 748, (1), it was held that compulsory retirement of a Government servant under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) does not cast a stigma or involves civil consequences and so the employee is not entitled to any opportunity to show cause against the order. It was further observed that though the right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one, the "power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the cor