( 1 ) THE petitioner Girdharsinh Ramsinh Parmar has filed the present Special Civil Application having been aggrieved by the order to prematurely retire him in public interest dated 21-7-1987.

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the Police Force in the former State of Saurashtra on 13-7-1951 and an 1-10-1951 he was promoted as an Unarmed Head Constable in the District of Rajkot. Later on taking his efficient discharge of duties into account he was upgraded as IIIrd Grade Head Constable and thereafter as IInd Grade Head Constable. He was also selected for training as P. S. I. in the year 1961. After he completed his training he was posted as a probationary P. S. I. for practical training in Baroda District in the year 1962. While he was at Baroda a departmental inquiry was instituted against him in which he was reverted to substantive rank of Head Constable for a period of three years. After completion of three years he was again promoted as P. S. I. and he was confirmed as P. S. I.

( 3 ) WHILE he was serving as P. S. I. at Amreli a departmental inquiry was held against him in respect of minor charges but he was exonerated from them. While he was at Bhavnagar again two different inquiries were held against him for minor charges from one of them he was exonerated and the second charge is still pending. He avers that none of the charges levelled against him relates to his integrity. He further avers that except those aforesaid inquiries no adverse remarks have been communicated to the petitioner. However he has been served with an order dated 21-7-1987 whereby he is prematurely retired. He has assailed this order on several counts which it is not necessary for me to recapitulate here.

( 4 ) RULE on the petition was issued on 24-11-1987 was made returnable on 9-12-1987.

( 5 ) THE respondent has filed the affidavit-in-reply of Deputy I. G. P. SSR Junagadh dated 25-9-1987. It is contended in the affidavit-in-reply that the case of the petitioner was considered when he was to attain the age of 55 years and after due deliberation it was found that it would not be in public interest to continue him in service. It is specifically contended that it is open to the Government authorities to retire a Government servant upon his attaining the age of 55 years in public interest and that is in the instant case upon perusal of service records of the petitioner the respondent and the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police Gujarat State have reached a conclusion that it would be necessary to prematurely retire him.

( 6 ) IT is contended that the petition suffers from the vice of suggestion falsi inasmuch as the petitioner is not having a good service record as suggested by him. He has himself admitted in the petition that he was punished and was reverted to a lower post during his service. It is denied that no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was communicated adverse remarks for the year 1975-76 1976 1977 1980 and 1982 and 1985-86. It is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed the above referred facts.

( 7 ) IT is further contended in reply to the ground of challenge in the petition regarding the constitution of the Review Committee according to the Circular dated 7-5-1986 that the same is not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 425-600 and not in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-2000 and therefore the notification dated 7-5-1986 is not applicable to him it is further contended that the petitioner was specifically instructed to control the illegal activities at Gogha Police Station but he did not take any effective steps at that regard whereas the Task Force had raided several places and had filed 14 Cases under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. This suggests that either the petitioner was absolutely careless or negligent in performance of his duties or he was showing undue favour to the persons involved in t