Satish Chandra, J.
1. On 10th June, 1968, the State Government passed the following order:--
'In exercise of the powers, mentioned in Note 1 to Article 465 of the Civil Send-vice Regulations and all other powers in this behalf, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on being satisfied that it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of Sri R. S. Raizada Sub-Registrar, is pleased to require the said official to retire from service with effect from the date of relief.'
The petitioner challenges the validity of this order of compulsory retirement on the grounds:--
(a) That the order was passed mala fide;
(b) That it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
(c) That the petitioner had a right to continue in service upto the age of superannuation, namely 58 years, and could not be retired at the age of 55 years. In my opinion, none of the points has any merit.
2. The petitioner alleges that in 1967, the Inspector General of Registration transferred the petitioner from Kanpur to Landsdown. The hill-stations did not suit the health of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Minister concerned. The Minister suggested that the petitioner's transfer to Landsdown would be reconsidered and he should be given some station on the plains. But, in spite of that, the Inspector General maintained his order. The petitioner's' allegation is that the petitioner's having approached the Minister annoyed the Inspector General, as a result whereof the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed.
3. In the counter-affidavit, these allegations have been denied. It has been stated that when the Hon'ble Minister came to Allahabad, the petitioner saw him, but the Inspector General was out on tour. The Minister left a message that the posting of the petitioner at Allahabad be considered. On return from tour, the Inspector General contacted the Hon'ble Minister to ensure the instructions. The Minister told him that he should pass orders only in the interest of administration. In these circumstances the order of the petitioner's transfer to Lands-down was maintained. The allegation that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed because the Inspector General was annoyed at the petitioner's approaching the Minister has been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had earned a large number of adverse entries. There were a large number of complaints against him. His integrity certificate had also been withheld. These were the reasons for which he was retired compulsorily on reaching the age of 55 years. In this state of pleadings, it is not possible to hold that the impugned order was passed mala fide.
4. The next point taken by the learned Counsel was that Note 1 to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Consititution. This Article authorises the compulsory re-tirement of a Government servant after he has attained the age of 55 years or after completing 25 years of qualifying service, if the appointing authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. It was urged that the public interest was a vague concept. It did not confer any guidance, and the conferment of an unguided and arbitrary discretion was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This precise point was negatived by a Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Ahad v. Inspector General of Police, AIR 1965 All 142 (FB). It was held that Article 465 does not infringe Article 16 of the Constitution. This Full Bench decision is binding on me. Moreover, a similar Rule for compulsory retirement came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. In T. G. Shivacharana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 280. Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules authorised the Government to retire a Government servant compulsorily if it was necessary to do so in the public interest. It was held that this Rule did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel relied upon an unreported decision of a Single Judge of this Court, wherein it was held that Article 465 violated Article 16 of the Constitution. In view of the Full Bench decision of this very Article, the contrary decision of a Single Judge cannot be preferred.
5. The next point taken by the learned Counsel was that the impugned order cast a stigma on the petitioner, aud, so, amounted to inflicting the punishment of removal or dismissal from service. The order only states that the Governor was satisfied that it is in the public interest to dispense with the services, of the petitioner. The question is whether this casts any stigma on the petitioner. The order does not refer to any qualities of head or heart of the petitioner or anything about his work and conduct. The order refers to the public interest. Article 465 authorises the Governor to compulsorily retire a Government servant in the public interest. The order Just states the condition precedent to the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement. In Shivacharana's case, AIR 1965 SC 280 mentioned above, on 31st July, 1961, the officer was served with a notice informing him that the Government considered it necessary to retire him in the public interest, under Note 1 to Rule 285. The order was upheld. The learned Counsel relied upon the State of U. P. v. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260. In that case the order of compulsory retirement stated that the officer had 'outlived his utility.' The Supreme Court held that this clause expressly casts stigma on the officer. In Jag-dish Mitter v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 449 also the order stated that the officer was found undesirable to be retained in Government service. This was held to cast a stigma on the officer. In I. N. Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1264, the order stated:--
'In pursuance of the orders contained in the General Administration Department Memo. No. 433-258-a(iii)/63 dated 28th February, 1963, tho State Government has decided to retire you with effect from the afternoon of the 3rd of December, 1963.'
The memo referred to in the order clearly stated that those who are unsuitable for being retained in the service should be retired compulsorily. In spite of that, the Supreme Court held that the order did not amount to casting a stigma.
6. An order can be said to cast a stigma on the Government servant if it contains some adverse remarks on his character or ability to work or on his integrity. Merely saying that the Governor was satisfied that it was in the public interest to dispense with the services of the officer does not make any reference to the qualities of the officer but refers to the requirements of the public interest. In my opinion, such an order cannot be construed as casting stigma on the Government servant so as to make the order one of removal or dismissal from service. This point also has no merits.
7. It was also urged that Article 465 violates Article 311 of the Constitution. This point has been negatived by the decision of the Supreme Court in Shyam Lal v. State of U. P., AIR 1954 SC 369.
8. The petition has no merits, and is accordingly dismissed with costs.