Judgement

K. N. SINGH, J. : - This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appellants petition made under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging validity of the Punjab Governments Order dated 19-3-80 retiring the appellant prematurely from service.

2. The appellant after having obtained 1st Class M. Sc. (Technology) degree from Banaras Hindu University in 1950 was awarded Gandhi Memorial Scholarship by the Govt. for study and training in France for a period of three years. On his return from abroad he was appointed as Superintendent Quality Marking Centre (Scientific Instruments) of the Government of Punjab. In 1963 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Technical). In 1968 he was promoted to the post of Joint Director (Industries), which post he continued to hold till he was prematurely retired by Government order dated 19th March, 1980 issued in exercise of power under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The appellant made a representation against the order of premature retirement to the Government but the same was rejected, thereupon the appellant challenged the validity of the Government order by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine by the High Court on August 5, 1981.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Government decision to retire the appellant prematurely was arbitrary and unreasonable as the appellants service record has all along been good and there was no material before the appropriate authority on the basis of which the requisite opinion that the appellants premature retirement was necessary in public interest, could be formed. He urged that the appellant had earned consistent good entries for the last 5 years, but the competent authority relied on some adverse entries of remote past to retire the appellant. Learned counsel further urged that appellants representation against some of the adverse entries which had been considered against him was pending and the same had not been considered and disposed of. Those entries should not have been considered against the appellant. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State urged that the appellants work and conduct was not satisfactory and the State Government having considered the overall service record of the appellant formed the requisite opinion bona fide that the appellants premature retirement was necessary in public interest. In support of his contention he placed the service record before the Court and referred to a number of adverse entries earned by the appellant during his service career to which we shall make reference at a later stage.

4. The purpose and object of premature or compulsory retirement of Government employee is to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest or dead-wood from the Government service. This right of the Government is well established which is generally exercised in accordance with relevant service Rules. The scope and ambit of exercise of this absolute power depends on the provisions of Rules and it is always subject to Constitutional limitations. In the instant case the appellant was prematurely retired in exercise of power under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules 1975, it would therefore be necessary to have a look at these provisions. Rule 3 reads as under :

"3. Premature retirement : (1)(a) The appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, have the absolute right, by giving an employee prior notice in writing, to retire that employee on the date on which he completes twenty five years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice.

(b) The period of such notice shall not be less than three months.

Provided that where at least three months notice is not