( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the action of his premature retirement from service inter alia on the ground that the order is vitiated having been passed in colourable exercise of power since it is based on consideration of irrelevant and non-germane factors and non-consideration of relevant material.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge of the petitioner to the order of premature retirement dated 30-4-87 it is necessary to refer briefly to his service particulars.

( 3 ) PETITIONER was appointed to the post of Sales Tax Inspector on 4/11/1959 in the erstwhile State of Bombay. He was promoted to the post of Sales Tax Officer on 26/06/1976. He was thereafter posted at Jamnagar where he worked upto 2 5/06/1982. On 30/06/1980 adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner for the year 1979-80 against which the petitioner made representation to the appropriate authority. Vide order dated 20/08/1981 his representation against adverse remarks for the year 1979-80 was partially accepted and two out of three adverse remarks were ordered to be deleted.

( 4 ) ON 8/06/1981 for the year 1980-81 once again adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner. He represented against the said adverse remarks and the competent authority accepted the said representation vide order dated 20/03/1984 and ordered deletion of two adverse remarks placed in the Confidential Report.

( 5 ) IT appears that thereafter the petitioner came to be selected and placed in the select list of Sales Tax Officers-Cl. I. The said list was prepared on 22-4-84.

( 6 ) BY order dated 2 9/01/1985 the petitioner was permitted to cross E. B with effect from 1/06/1981.

( 7 ) ON 13/02/1985 an order imposing minor penalty of withholding of one increment without future effect was passed against the petitioner Petitioner preferred appeal against said order which came to be dismissed on 6/01/1986.

( 8 ) ON 30/04/1987 the impugned order is passed by the Dy. Secretary Finance Department State of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 161 (1) (aa) of Bombay Civil Service Rules immediately retiring the petitioner from service. It is this order of the premature retirement dated 30/04/1987 which is under challenge in this petition.

( 9 ) BEFORE I advert to various submissions made on behalf of the petitioner it would be necessary to state the stand of the respondents and justification shown by them for passing the impugned order.

( 10 ) MR. M. H. Chanchi Undersecretary to the Govt. of Gujarat Finance Department has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is prematurely retired from the post of Sales Tax Officer-Cl. II at the age of 50 years in pursuance to Rule 161 (1) (aa) of Bombay Civil Service Rules in public interest. It is further stated that upon perusal of service record of the petitioner the Revenue Department was of the opinion that in the public interest the petitioner should be prematurely retired In para 5 of the affidavit-in-reply the positive case of the respondents is stated The said para is reproduced hereinbelow :"it is submitted that upon perusal of the confidential remarks and service record of the petitioner it was found that integrity of the petitioner was doubtful It is further submitted that the petitioner was holding a responsible post of Sales Tax Officer Cl. II. In view of the fact that the petitioner was also not good in administration after careful consideration and due deliberation the Committee had recommended that the petitioner should be prematurely retired. It is submitted that the said recommendation of the Review Committee was accepted by the respondent No. 1 after due deliberation and careful consideration. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has been rightly retired prematurely in the public interest".

( 11 ) FROM the positive stand taken by the respondents in their