As already stated, the High Court dismissed the application on, the 1st October, 1953.
At or about this time the appellant along with several other officers was recommended by the Chief Engineer for companyfirmation as Superintending Engineer.
The appellant, however, was number companyfirmed but companytinued to officiate as Superintending Engineer until the time hereinafter stated.
were them set out.
A companyy of the letter of the 4th January, 1950, together with a companyy of the enclosure was sent to the appellant with the request that his explanation might be forwarded,.
On the 4th January, 1950, the Public Works Department of the U.P. Government addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Branch U.P. requesting him to companymunicate the letter enclosed therewith to the appellant and to ask him to submit as early as possible whatever explanation he might desire to give.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to the High Court of Allahabad under, article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ quashing the order made by the President of India on the 17th April, 1953, ordering the companypulsory retirement of the appellant who had companypleted 25 years qualifying service.
The appellant submitted his explanations which, together with the Chief Engineers companyments thereon, were placed before the Union Public Service Commission.
On the 17th April, 1953, the President, after companysidering the case and the recommendations of the Commission, decided that the appellant should retire forthwith from service under Note I to article 465 A of the Civil Service Regulations.
March 30.
The present appeal is directed against that order of dismissal.
The Commission came to the companyclusion that five out of the six charges had been proved and submitted their report accordingly.
The companyering letter companycluded with the following remarks Under the rules Government reserve the right to companypulsorily retire any officer whose retention in service they companysider number to be in the public interest.
The material facts may be shortly stated as follows The appellant passed his Civil Engineering degree examinaion from the Thomason College.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The companyditions governing the appellants terms of appointment, promotion, leave, pension, etc.,
This is number, therefore, a formal enquiry under the Classification.
248 of 1953.
No less than, six instances on which these charges were based.
Before this order companyld be served on him the appellant on the 24th April, 1953, filed before the Allahabad High Court a petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order made by the President on the 17th April, 1953, be quashed on the ground, inter alia, that the order was illegal and void in that it was made without affording him any opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
After the attainment of independence by India a fresh agreement was entered into by and between the appellant the Governor of the United Provinces and the Governor General of India on the 16th September, 1948 companyfirming the appellants terms of appointment companytained in the letter of the 13th February, 1924.
In 1944 the appellant was promoted to the rank of officiating Superintending Engineer.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus A. Mehta, with him for respondent No.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, K. L. Misra, Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh C. P. Lal, with them for respondent No.
C. Chatterjee P.K. Chatterjee, with him for the appellant.
The enclosed letter called upon the appellant to show cause within three weeks why he should number be companypulsorily retired under the provisions of article 465 A, Civil Service Regulations,as it appeared 1 that he had been making systematic and gross overpayments apparently for numberother reason than to benefit the companytractors companycerned and 2 that he had spent large amounts of public money for his own personal companyvenience and 3 that he had taken recourse to devious and unscrupulous methods.
within the period mentioned by the Government.
The High Court by its judgment dated the 1st October, 1953, dismissed the application but, as the case involved a substantial question of the interpretation of the Constitution, the High Court granted leave to the appellant to appeal to this Court.
He was appointed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Service of Engineers as an Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from the 20th October, 1923.
He was posted in ,the United Provinces.
Control and Appeal Rules but before taking the action indicated above Government were pleased to and an opportunity to Shri Shyam Lal, I.S.E., to show cause why he should number be companypulsorily retired.
379 of 1953.
Roorkee, in 1922.
He stood first in order of merit and carried away the Gold Medal and other prizes awarded to the best student of that year.
The order of the President which is imppgned by the appellant shows that action was purported to be taken in regard to the appellant under Note 1 to article 465 A of the Civil Service Regulations.
