JUDGMENT Sikri J.-This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra, Pradesh is directed against its judgment and decree whereby the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and dismissed the appellant s suit (O.S. No. 1 of 1958). The appellant will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff had claimed, a declaration that the order of the Government of Hyderabad, dated February 4, 1950, purporting to remove the plaintiff from service on premature compulsory retirement was wrongful, illegal, ultra-vires and null and void, and for arrears, of salary, pension and damages amounting to Rs. 3, 11, 583/-. The Trial Court decreed that the order of the Government compulsorily retiring the plaintiff from service was illegal and null and void and that the plaintiff would be deemed to be in service till May 31, 1960, the date of superannuation. The Trial Court also decreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to such pension to be determined by the Government as he is entitled under the Rules from June 1, 1960. The Trial Court also gave a decree for Rs. 1, 03, 071/10 (0. S.) with interest thereon at 6% p. a. from the date from which the salary became due. 3. The facts necessary for the determination of the points debated before us are as follows. The plaintiff was appointed a Munsif and Magistrate in the Hyderabad Judicial Service in 1929. In due course he was made Additional District Judge and Magistrate. On July 2, 1949, the plaintiff took charge as Additional District Judge and Magistrate, Warrangal. A few days later one Khaja Moinuddin, a legal practitioner of Warrangal submitted a petition to the High Court complaining that when he sent an application through the Court clerk to the plaintiff, who was then in his .Chamber, for permission to take the signatures on Vakalat of certain accused persons who were being remanded to jail, the plaintiff abused him in indecent and filthy language. 4. The High Court, on its administrative side, held an enquiry and ultimately the Chief Justice accepted the recommandation of the Administrative Bench of the High Court that the plaintiff should be retired on pension. 5. 4. The High Court, on its administrative side, held an enquiry and ultimately the Chief Justice accepted the recommandation of the Administrative Bench of the High Court that the plaintiff should be retired on pension. 5. We are not concerned with the decision of the Military Governor of Hyderabad because the Government finally by its order dated February 4, 1950, ordered compulsory retirement of the plaintiff who had by then completed about 21 years service. 6. By the time this order was passed, the Constitution applied to the Stats of Hyderabad and art. 311 applied to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted various representations and ultimately failing to secure redress filed the above-mentioned suit. Various grounds were taken before the Trial Court and the High Court, but the plaintiff must succeed in this appeal on the short ground that the Government of Hyderabad had no statutory authority to retire him compulsorily before he had put in qualifying service for 25 years. The High Court in deciding against the plaintiff relied on article 305 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations. Article 305 runs: "305. An officer cannot be given a retiring pension against his will unless the Government in the Finance Department so approves. In ordering retirement on completion of 25 years of service, Government will not be bound to give reasons for retirement." Other relevant articles are as follows: "297. An officer in superior or in inferior service who has attained the age of 55 may be required to retire on superannuation pension. 298 (a) A Gazetted officer who has attained the age of 55 should ordinarily be required to retire and should not be retained in service except where unquestionable public grounds for retention exist and the Medical Board certifies that he is physically fit to discharge the duties of the post for which his services are retained. 302. A retiring pension is granted to an officer who can retire or can be made to retire after completing service for a specified period. 303. Government servants in superior and in the inferior service have the option to retire after completing 25 years qualifying service. 302. A retiring pension is granted to an officer who can retire or can be made to retire after completing service for a specified period. 303. Government servants in superior and in the inferior service have the option to retire after completing 25 years qualifying service. 306-A. If a Government servant, before completing 25 years service or the age of 55 years, resigns or voluntarily applies for retirement, and if the retirement is permitted by competent authority, he will be entitled to the gratuity or pension on the same scale as if he had qualified for an invalid or compensation pension. Pension, granted under this rule, will be known as "Proportionate Pension." This special concession will apply to those who put in their applications oa or after 1st October, 1949, and before 1st January 1950." 335. In the case of an officer in superior service, who retires before he is 55 years of age, it must be stated in the column for any other remarks" on the third page of the application for pension whether the retirement is compulsory or optional; when compulsory, the order sanctioning retirement must be quoted and cause of inefficiency specified." 7. The High Court held that the right to retire a person against his will even before completing 25 years of service on a retiring pension was given to the Government subject to the condition that the reasons for retirement were given, and the Finance Department agreed to it." We are unable to agree with the High Court that article 305 can bear this interpretation. In our view the first sentence only provides that if under the rules a retiring pension can be given against the will of an officer the Government in the Finance Department should approve. The second sentence of article 305 only exempts the Government from giving reasons if the Government servant s retirement is ordered on completion of 25 years of service. This article does not, in our opinion, give an independent power of compulsorily retiring an officer at any time. That power, if at all, must be found in some other article but none has been brought to our notice. 8. If no rule authorised the Government of Hyderabad to compulsorily retire the plaintiff before the date of superannuation and before he had put in 25 years of service the order violated art. That power, if at all, must be found in some other article but none has been brought to our notice. 8. If no rule authorised the Government of Hyderabad to compulsorily retire the plaintiff before the date of superannuation and before he had put in 25 years of service the order violated art. 311 of the Constitution and must be held to be bad (see Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, N. E. F. Railways (1964) 5 S. C. R. 683. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the High Court set aside and the order and decree of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, restored. There will be no order as to costs in this Court. The appellant will pay the Court-fees due to the Government on the appeal to this Court. The advocates for the appellant are permitted to charge such fees as are allowed on taxation against the other party. For Citation : (1968) 2 SCWR 773