ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner prays that the order passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 24th November, 1965, compulsorily retiring him from service under Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations be quashed. 2. The petitioner entered the U. P. Police Force as a Sub-Inspector in March 1939. In due course he acquired the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1948. In 1963 an enquiry into certain charges was held by the Administrative Tribunal against the petitioner but he was exonerated. The proceedings were dropped. It has been stated that the petitioners second efficiency bar at Rs. 640/ stage was withheld in 1963 on the ground that he did not satisfy the criteria prescribed for crossing it. The petitioner states that though the petitioner was stopped at the efficiency bar for one year, but he has not been permitted to cross it even in 1964, 1965 and 1966. The petitioner made representations but has received no response from the Government so far. On 28th November, 1966, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 24th November, 1966, compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from the date of relief. The order has been passed in exercise of powers under Note 1 to Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations. The order states that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was pleased to dispense with the further services of the petitioner in the public interest. It required the petitioner to retire from service. 3. Mr. Jagdish Swarup, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the order of compulsory retirement on the grounds :- 1. The ground for retirement, namely, that it was in the public interest, casts a stigma. An order on that ground would be tantamount to removal from service attracting Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since no opportunity to show cause was afforded to the petitioner, the order was void. 2. Regulation 465A involves serious consequences. A proceeding culminating in such an order would be quasi judicial in nature requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Note 1 to Article 465A confers an unguided discretion in the Government and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Regulation 465A involves serious consequences. A proceeding culminating in such an order would be quasi judicial in nature requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Note 1 to Article 465A confers an unguided discretion in the Government and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The relevant part of Note 1 to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations runs as follows:- "Note 1 - Government retains the right to retire any Government servant after he has completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on this account shall be entertained. This right shall only be exercised by Government in the Administrative Department where it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant who has outlived his usefulness." By Notification No. 0-2-2392/B-910-49 dated 15th July, 1964, the State Government amended the first note by deleting the words "who has outlived his usefulness." Since then, the background upon which an order for compulsory retirement can be passed remains considerations of public interest simpliciter. The further requirement that the Government servant had outlived his usefulness is no longer necessary. 4. For the petitioner, it was urged that an order for retirement can be made only when it was considered to be in the public interest. This ground, in substance, would mean that the Government servant was not fit to be retained in the service or that he could not render useful service. Such grounds do cast a stigma on the Government servant. Retirement on such a ground would be tantamount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed upon the observation of Desai, C. J., in the Full Bench case of this court in Abdul v. Inspector General of Police, AIR 1965 Allahabad 142 (FB). In that case, the order for compulsory retirement expressly stated that Abdul Ahad had outlived his utility. Desai, C. J. observed:- "It is in public interest to retain a servant who can render useful service; it is only when he ceases to render useful service that it would not be in public interest to keep him on. Therefore, compulsory retirement will always be on the ground that he can no longer render useful service. Desai, C. J. observed:- "It is in public interest to retain a servant who can render useful service; it is only when he ceases to render useful service that it would not be in public interest to keep him on. Therefore, compulsory retirement will always be on the ground that he can no longer render useful service. The position certainly does not become worse because what is implied is expressed." These observations of the Full Bench came up for consideration before the Supreme 'Court in State of U. P. v. Madan Mohan, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1260. In paragraph 14, the Supreme Court dissented from this view and, held that they were unable to agree that the position did not become worse because a stigma was attached expressly. So, the fact that the order expressly recites a ground, which does cast a stigma, makes the legal position different. The decision of the Suoreme Court does not countenance the position that the ground of public interest by itself casts a stigma. 5. In the State of Bombay' v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, A.I.R. 1957 SC 892, the order of compulsory retirement under Rule 165-A of the Bombay Civil Service Rules did not contain any aspersion on Doshi that he was inefficient or suffered from some other defect. The order was upheld. Venkatarama Aiyar, J., observed at p. 895 : "When the Government decides to retire a servant before the age of superannuation it does so for some good reason, and that, in general, would be misconduct or inefficiency ..............the fact to be noticed is that while misconduct and inefficiency are factors that enter into account where the order is one of dismissal or removal or of retirement, there is this difference that while in the case of retirement they merely furnish the background................. in the case of dismissal or removal, they form the very basis on which the order is made. So, where the order passed does not contain any charge or imputation, it cannot be said that it casts a stigma because the background was of some misconduct or inefficiency. An imputation or charge is not under Note 1 to Article 465-A, a condition for the exercise of the power. So, where the order passed does not contain any charge or imputation, it cannot be said that it casts a stigma because the background was of some misconduct or inefficiency. An imputation or charge is not under Note 1 to Article 465-A, a condition for the exercise of the power. In Shyam Lal v. State of U. P., A.I.R. 1954 SC 369, the Supreme Court observed at page 374: "..........what is important to note is that the direction in the last sentence in Note 1 to Article 465-A makes it abundantly clear that an imputation or charge is not in terms made a condition for the exercise of the power. In other words, a compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity." Thus, a retirement on the ground of public interest cannot be held to import any stigma on the Government servant. 6. Similarly, in Shivacharan Singh v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1965 SC 280, the order did not cast any' stigma. Under R. 285 of the Mysore Civil Service Rules, 1952, retirement could be ordered if it was considered necessary in the public interest. The order was upheld as valid. In P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1958 SC 232, R. 3 of the Railway Service (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules 1949, provided for compulsory retirement on the ground that retention of the public servant in service was prejudicial to the national security. The validity of the rule was upheld. The order of compulsory retirement in that case did not cast any stigma on the public servant. The order was also upheld as valid. All these authorities lead to the conclusion that the provision in the rules that compulsory retirement can be ordered in the public interest does not constitute a stigma on the public servant. 7. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 SC1305, the Supreme Court held that, in view of its earlier decision in Shyam Lals case, A.I.R. 1954 SC 369, two tests had to be applied in order to see whether an order of compulsory retirement amounted to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Art. oil (2) of the Constitution. The first was whether the action was by way of punishment and to find that out, the Court said, it was necessary that a charge or imputation against the officer is made the condition of the exercise of the power, the second was whether by the compulsory retirement the officer was losing the benefit he had already earned as he did on dismissal or removal. None of these two tests is fulfilled in the present case. Merely because the retirement is directed on the grounds of public interest, it will not be by way of punishment. The order stating that the retirement was directed in public interest, therefore, cannot be held to be making punishment as a condition of the exercise of the power of retirement. 8. In I. N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1264, the Supreme Court specifically held that where an order requiring a Government servant to retire compulsorily did not express words, which would throw any stigma on the Government servant, the Court could not look into the background resulting in the passing of such order in order to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred. It was, therefore, not open to the petitioner to ask the Court to go behind the order and delve into secretariat files in order to see whether in fact the order was passed with an intention to cast a stigma on the Government servant. 9. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, in my opinion, be upheld. 10. The next submission of the learned counsel was that an order of compulsory retirement had serious evil consequences on the Government servant. It deprived him of the salary for the period till he reaches the age of superannuation. It deprived him of the office also. In such circumstances, the proceedings culminating in an order of compulsory retirement would attract the principles of natural justice. The Government servant would be entitled to an opportunity of explanation. The petitioner was not afforded any such opportunity. Consequently, the impugned order was bad. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Doshis case, A.I.R. 1957 SC 892, referred to above, that an order of retirement is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules, and it involves no penal consequences. The petitioner was not afforded any such opportunity. Consequently, the impugned order was bad. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Doshis case, A.I.R. 1957 SC 892, referred to above, that an order of retirement is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules, and it involves no penal consequences. A person is entitled to an opportunity of explanation when he is being punished. If no punishment is meted out, the principles of natural justice would not be attracted. The rules make the order of retirement dependent on the satisfaction of the Governor. They thus leave the matter to his subjective opinion, and principles of natural justice would not be attracted to such a proceeding. In A.I.R. 1965 SC 280, it was held that whether or not the petitioners retirement was in the public interest was a matter for the State Government to consider. In my opinion, this ground of attack also cannot be upheld. 11. The last submission of the learned counsel was that Note 1 to Article 465-A violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of rules similar to Note I to Article 465-A has been settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court (See A.I.R. 1954 SC 369 and Moti Ram v. General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway, A.I.R. 1964 SC 600.) It was urged that Note confers an unguided discretion on the Government. The Government can act arbitrarily. The note provides a standard and guidance to the executive when it says that the right of compulsory retirement of a Government servant can be exercised only where it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant. It does not authorise an arbitrary action. If in any individual case an order is passed arbitrarily, it can be struck down on that ground. The note is not, in my opinion, violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. 12. In the result, none of the points, pressed has merit. The petition fails and is consequently dismissed with costs.