JUDGMENT :

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

We have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. This intra-court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 430 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

3. The appellant was appointed as Deputy Engineer in the year 1980 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1983. In the year 1993 departmental inquiries were initiated for acts of alleged misconduct ranging from very minor irregularities or negligence and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for a period ranging from three months to two years without future effect in all cases. Thereafter on 03.01.2011 the respondents passed order whereby premature retirement of the appellant was directed after he attained the age of 50 years under rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 with effect from the date of the receipt of the order by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the captioned writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeal is filed assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in law in reaching the conclusion that 'the Government did have power to order premature retirement of the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 10(4) of the Pension Rules, 2002 and further that 'the consideration of sixteen departmental inquiries wherein the appellant was found guilty and was punished could not be termed as irrelevant or extraneous material to arrive at a satisfaction about discontinuance of service of the petitioner in public interest'.

4.1 Mr. Mehta contended that the Government of Gujarat has clearly indicated in the departmental circular dated 12.02.2004 that while deciding the premature retirement of an officer, last ten years' confidential reports, inquiry, physical and mental condition to perform the duties are the only criteria to be followed. He submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the recommendation of the Review Committee is based solely on the sixteen departmental minor penalties imposed on the appellant in the far past.

4.2 Mr. Mehta submitted that when there are special Rules for officers working in the Engineering cadre, the general powers of the Government cannot be invoked to order premature retirement. He submitted that there is no material on record based on which the respondents could have ordered premature retirement of the appellant.

5. Mr. Prakash Jani, learned AAG appearing for the respondent State submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the departmental inquiries where the appellant was found guilty and for which he was punished were rightly taken into consideration by the Government and the same could not have been excluded by terming it as irrelevant or extraneous material. He submitted that the Committee has considered the entire service record of the appellant including his confidential reports for the last ten years and after a thoughtful consideration the Committee recommended to retire the appellant from service in public interest. He submitted that the impugned judgment and order having passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. The learned Single Judge by way of the impugned judgment and order in the writ petition has observed as under:

"14. I am unable to accept the above contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner for more than one reasons. Firstly, the merits of those departmental inquiries or the punishment order passed by the Government in each depa