1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226, Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or other direction or order quashing the order of the respondent-Government bearing G. O. No. 7012-7016/L. R. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner or, in the alternative, to sanction the full pension as ordered in G.O. No. 2722-26/L. R. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953.
2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as under.
3. The petitioner was an Amildar in the State service. In their Order No. R. 7012-7016/L. R. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, the Government directed the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the ground that the Officer was found corrupt and guilty of misconduct. They, however, on the representations made by the petitioner directed in their Order No. R. 2722-26/L. R. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953, that the petitioner should be paid his full pension, but the Accountant-General took objection to the grant of pension to the petitioner on the ground that the order offended the provisions of Article 223, Mysore Service Regulations, and observed that the petitioner was only entitled to compassionate allowances as pro-vided therein. Thereupon the Government modified the original order and withdrew, in their Order No. G. 11972-76/L. R. 118-53-4, dated 23-10-1953, the pension previously ordered, and allowed compassionateallowances permissible under Article 223, Mysore ServiceRegulations. In this petition, the petitioner hasprayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or otherdirect ton or order to quash the order of the Respondent-Government directing his compulsory retirementor, in the alternative, to restore full pension orderedby the Respondent in the first instance.
4. The main point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to admit this petition. Out of the several grounds urged in the petition, only one was canvassed before us, and that is the petitioners right to the full pension as ordered in the first instance by the Respondent-Government. The learned Counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that he cannot, and would not, question the validity or the correctness of the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner. Therefore we only confine ourselves to the alternative ground urged by the petitioner with respect to his right to pension.
5. So the point that arises for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to the full pension as ordered previously by the State Government or only to such compassionate allowances as provided under Article 223, Mysore Service Regulations. It appears to us that there is absolutely no merit in this petition. The concluding paragraph of the order of Government directing the compulsory retirement of the petitioner runs thus :
'They therefore direct that he be compulsorily retired from service on such pension as is admissible under the Mysore Service Regulations.'
Thus it is seen that the order otherwise means that the Petitioner will be entitled to such pension as is admissible under the Mysore Service Regulations Therefore it follows that it the Mysore Service Regulations permit the payment of pension to a person compulsorily retired, then the petitioner will certainly be entitled to such pension. It is clear from a reading of the order and it was also conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he (petitioner) was compulsorily retired on charges of corruption and misconduct. Such a case is covered by Article 223 Mysore Service Regulations, which provides that no pension may be granted to an officer removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but in cases in which the officer so removed are deserving of special consideration compassionate allowances may be granted provided that the allowance granted to any officer shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had been retired on medical certificate. According to this Article, an officer removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency is not entitled to any pension. Unfortunately, the use of the words 'compulsorily retired' appearing in the order of Government dated 20-1-1950 seems to have given much room for the petitioner to agitate this matter before this Court by means of a writ petition.
6. The term 'retirement' or 'compulsory retirement' seems to imply the right of an officer for pension. Termination of service brought about by compulsory retirement appears to be different from termination of service brought about as a result of misconduct on the part of the officer. A distinction has to be made between 'compulsory retirement' and 'removal' or 'dismissal'. When an officer is removed from service or is dismissed, it always implies that the officer is guilty of some misconduct. There is no such element of imputation in the case of an officer compulsorily retired. This is the distinction made between these words by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported in Shyamlal v. State of U. P., : (1954)IILLJ139SC (A). The term 'retired' or 'compulsorily retired'. means that the services of an officer have been terminated for reasons other than those mentioned in Article 223, Mysore Service Regulations. Whenever the services of an officer are dispensed with for corruption or other misconduct, the appropriate word to be employed to such a case is 'removed' or 'removal'. In this case, it is futile to contend that the use of the words 'compulsorily retired' has placed the petitioner in a better position because the very order under which the petitioner is compulsorily retired gives also the reasons for passing that order, they being that he was found corrupt and guilty of misconduct. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the use of an incorrect term as 'compulsorily retired' appearing in the order of Government. The substance of the entire order has to be taken into consideration and the nature of the termination of services should be found out. As observed already, the proper terminology that should have been employed in the case of the petitioner was that he had been 'removed from service'. If the order of Government had merely stated that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired without assigning reasons for such retirement, then there would have been some substance or force in the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to pension. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that there arc no sufficient grounds to admit this petition.
7. In the result, this petition stands dismissed.
8. Petition dismissed.