It was also companytended that some baseless allegations were made against her because of malicious vendetta carried on by Vyas, and that the order of premature retirement was number in public interest but was arbitrary and capricious, and that the retiring authority had number applied its mind to the record of her case.
She also made a mention of the adverse remarks made by Vyas in her service record after she had ceased to work under him which, according to her, were totally unfounded, biased, malicious and without any justification.
The appellant made representation on April 6, 1976, but it was rejected on July 1, 1976.
From the Judgment and order dated 24 11 76 of the Delhi High Court in C.R.P. No.
The appellant has pointed out in this companynection that her service record was examined in March, 1976, by the Departmental Promotion Committee, with which the Union Public Service Commission was associated, and the Committee companysidered her fit for promotion to the selection grade subject to clearance in the departmental proceedings which were pending against her, and that she was retired because of bias and animosity.
It is number in companytroversy, and has in fact been specifically stated in the order of premature retirement dated March 26, 1976, that the appellant was retired in the public interest under clause j i of rule 56.
She stated that her integrity had never been companysidered doubtful 28 years before or 4 years after the period of 21 months she spent under him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
She therefore filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under article 226 of the Constitution in which she, inter alia, made a mention of the hostile attitude of one V. D. Vyas who took over as Chairman of the Central Board of Film Censors from her on February 11, 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J., This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the Delhi High Court dated November 24, 1976, dismissing the appellants writ petition in timing.
She was working as Joint Director, Family Planning, in the Directorate General of the All India Radio, when she was served with an order dated March 26, 1976, retiring her prematurely from service, with immediate effect, on the ground that she had already attained the age of 50 years on April 11, 1972, and the President was of the opinion that her retirement was in the public interest.
2764 of 1977.
The appellant also pointed out that the order cast a stigma on her companyduct, character and integrity and amounted to the imposition of one of the major penal ties under the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965.
K. Ramamurthi and Faqir Chand for the appellant.
N. Lekhi and Girish Chandra for the respondent.
The appellant was promoted to the post of Director in the All India Radio after some thirty years of service under the Government of India.
1264/76 .
It was particularly pointed out that as he was companyfirmed in the post of Director on April 28, 1973, with retrospective effect from July 10, 1970, any adverse remark in her companyfidential report before that date companyld number legitimately form the basis of the order of her premature retirement.
