(Delivered by VEERASWAMI C.J.)

The appeals are from an order of Venkatadri J. allowing the first respondents petitions to quash his compulsory retirement by an order G.O.Ms. No. 906, Home dated 15th March 1965. The learned Judge was of the view that though the order in form was a compulsory retirement, in effect, in the background of the circumstances, it amounted to an order of punishment without going through the procedure under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. He was also of opinion that the order was but a cover and, in any case, the particular rule empowering the Government to compulsorily retire him in the circumstances provided for unguided power and it was therefore bad. No elaborate statement of the earlier facts relating to the service of the first respondent may be necessary, but briefly, in 1941, he entered the Army en a Kings Commission. But he was released from it in 1950 and joined the Indian Police Service. Inst as he was exacting his promotion in 1956 to the cadre of Deputy Inspector General of Police, certain charges were framed against him to which he submitted bis explanations between August 1958 and October 1959. A tribunal was constituted to enquire late the charges which made its report in September 1960. There were as many as 13 charges of which four were dropped Out of the remaining charges only a part of a charge and three ether charges were found to have been proved. On 7th November 1960, the first respondent was placed under suspension with effect from 20th October 1960. A provisional concision to dismiss the officer was arrived at in November 1960, but on receipt of representations from the first respondent, the matter was referred to the Union Public Service Commission, which recommended compulsory retirement as a punishment. The Solicitor General was later consulted. He disagreed with the Commission and opined that the whole procedure reflected a great deal of prejudice to the first respondent. Apparently, as a result of this opinion, the Union Government decided to drop the charges and this was conveyed to the State Government. Then followed the impugned order dated 15th March 1965. By that order the first respondent was informed that the Government of Madras, with the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, had decided to prematurely retire him from service under sub-rule (2) of rule 17 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958, with effect from 15th June 1965 afternoon, the date on which he attained the age of 55 years. He was accordingly by that order given notice under the said rule that he would be retired from service prematurely with effect from that date. On the same day there was another order G.O.Ms. No. 906, Home, which directed that the first respondent be released from suspension forthwith and reinstated in service with immediate effect. But in making that direction, the Government also said this:

“The Government of India have decided to drop the charges, as a de novo enquiry on the existing charges will only cause hardship to the officer and is unlikely to result in discovery of new facts and that the charges which remain to be enquired into arc not about very major matters. The Union Service Commission has not agreed with this view. Having regard to the provisions of rule 9 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, and the decision of the Government of India, the Government consider that Sri K.S. Venkataraman has not been fully exonerated of the charges and that the suspensions of the officer is not unjustifiable. The Government, therefore direct that the period from the date of suspension of Sri K.S. Venkatareman to the date of his reinstatement in service be treated as duty and that he be allowed daring that period the pay and allowance limited to the subsistence allowances drawn by him daring that period.”

The inspector General of Police gave effect to this order and posted the first respondent to a a