He first companytended that Rule 5.32 of the relevant rules was quoted in the order but, in the companynter affidavit of the State in this Court it was mentioned that the order was number passed under that rule.
The second ground pressed was one of malafides of the second respondent, the Commissioner of Excise, at whose instance, according to the appellant, entries of bad record were made in his service sheets.
Probably his record of service was number sullied but, in his later years in office since 1970 his record was a mixed one.
R. Krishna Iyer, J. The companypulsory retirement of the appellant, by the first respondent, the State of Punjab, by Exhibit A, dated January 11, 1974 was challenged before the High Court but rebuffed with merited brevity after the Court called for the reply of the respondents.
