ORDER

Jagmohan Lal, J. - The petitioner Jagdish Sahai Agnihotri was in the employ of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh as an Excise Inspector. He was compulsorily retired under Rule 465-A of Civil Service Regulations by the State Government under an order dated 17-4-1969 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). He made a representation against that order which was also dismissed by the State Government on 26-8-1969, vide Annexure 12. Being dissatisfied with these orders he filed this writ petition against the State of Uttar Pradesh, Sri R.P. Khosla, the then Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, Excise Department, Smt. Lata Singh, Deputy Secretary to Government in the said department, the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh and the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kanpur Circle, Kanpur. He challenged these orders on various grounds mentioned in the petition, the main ground being that the orders were mala fide and they had been passed at the instance of Sri R.P. Khosla and Smt. Lata Singh. He prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and the issue of a direction or order commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service from the date he handed over charge, that is, 21-4-1969, till he is properly retired on attaining the age of superannuation or his services are legally dispensed with.

2. The writ was contested by the opposite parties who filed counter-affidavits. One counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 5 was sworn by Sri Raghunandan Sahai, the then Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kanpur Circle, another counter-affidavit was sworn by Sri R.P. Khosla, the third by Smt. Lata Singh and the fourth by Sri S.K. Chaudhury, the then Excise Commissioner. In these affidavits the factual allegations made by the petitioner to challenge the order of retirement were controverted.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide, arbitrary and illegal and that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to show cause before passing this order. Lastly he contended that this order was divorced from the circumstances on the basis of which it could be said that it had been passed in the public interest.

4. As regards the allegation that the order was mala fide, the petitioner contended that at the time this order was passed he was posted as Excise Inspector at Standard Refinery and Distillery, Unnao which was owned by Messrs Karam Chand Thapar and Sons. It was contended that one of the proprietors, named Sri B. M. Thapar, was a relation of Sri R. P. Khosla, the then Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, Excise Department, and that the petitioner had detected certain irregularities and malpractices in the working of this Distillery by Messrs Thapar and Sons which annoyed the said proprietor of this Distillery and he was instrumental in bringing about the compulsory retirement of the petitioner through his relation Sri R. P. Khosla. With regard to Smt. Lata Singh Opposite Party No. 3, the allegation of the petitioner was that she was on intimate terms with Sri O. P. Diwan, the Manager of the aforesaid Distillery. Besides that, she was also interested in helping one Sri Mathur, proprietor of N.K. Industries Kanpur. She wanted that denatured spirit from the aforesaid Distillery may be made available to this firm in defiance of the rules and the petitioner should connive over these dealings, but the petitioner did not agree to do so and this incurred the displeasure of Smt. Lata Singh. It was, therefore, suggested that both these officers were responsible for getting this order of compulsory retirement passed even though the proceedings were not initiated by the Excise Commissioner who was the appointing authority of the petitioner. To give strength to these allegations a further allegation was made by the