JUDGMENT- The short question that falls for consideration in this petition, is whether the impugned order of compulsory premature retirement from service passed against the petitioner, was in compliance with the provisions of Note (1) of Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 applicable to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had joined the services in the office of the Registrar of Firms, as a Clerk, on 1st April 1953. On 1st December 1959, he WM promoted to the post of senior clerk. In 1961, he passed the Marathi Typing Examination and earned a cash incentive of Rs. 100 on 17tb March 1970 he was promoted as Head Clerk and he continued to hold the said post till he was served with the impugned Notice-cum-order of compulsory retirement dated the 3rd October 1975, whereby he was retired from service with effect from the 10th January 1976. It appears that only about a week before the said order was issued, by a communication dated 22nd September 1975 (received by the petitioner on 29th September 1975) he was communicated the confidential remarks for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, on 22nd October 1975 against the said compulsory retirement. To that, reply dated 2nd January] 976 was received from the Joint Secretary to the Government informing him that the Government did not consider it necessary to review his case and no useful purpose would be served by granting him personal hearing as requested by him. On receipt of this reply, the present petition was filed on 7th January 1976. 3. Admittedly the impugned Notice-cum-order of compulsory premature retirement was issued under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The said Rule may be quoted in full as follows: "A Government servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years' qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. The said Rule may be quoted in full as follows: "A Government servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years' qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Government may also require a Government servant to retire an)' time after he has completed 30 years' qualifying service provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant, at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire. Note (i) The authority competent to serve notice on Government servants who have completed 30 years' qualifying service should be the Heads of Departments in respect of Government servants whom the Heads of Departments or lower authorities are competent to appoint. The power of requiring Government servants to retire should be restricted to retirement on public grounds, such as impairment of efficiency of a Government servant against whom it is not desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency or a Government servant ceasing to be fully efficient but not to such a degree as a warrant his retirement on compassionate pension. The exact reason should be recorded in writing in each case." 4. As per this Rule read with Note (i) thereunder, the Government has power to retire a Government servant any time after he completes 30 years of qualifying service provided three conditions are satisfied, namely (i) that the appropriate authority should give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant, at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire; (ii) the power to retire should be restricted to retirement on public grounds, such an impairment of efficiency of the Government servant against whom it is not desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency or the Government servant should cease to be fully efficient but not to such a degree as to warrant his retirement on compassionate pension; and (iii) the exact reason should be recorded in writing in each case. The public ground on which a Government servant may be retired under this Rule, therefore, is restricted only to two categories of cases, namely impairment of efficiency where it is not desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency, and ceasing to be fully efficient to a degree short of warranting retirement on compassionate pension. There is no other reason on which recourse to the power of compulsory retirement can be taken under this Rule. What is more, this Rule requires that the exact reason out of the two should be recorded in writing in each case. It must be remembered in this connection that there is a power of premature compulsory retirement given to the Government also under Rule 161 Note 6 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. A comparison with the said provisions of compulsory retirement shows that there the Government has been given an absolute right to retire any Government servant after he attains the age of 55 years, provided the appropriate authority is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The expression public interest has not been defined, explained or conditioned as in the present case, namely, Rule 8 of the said Rules. It also further appears that for the purpose of compulsory retirement under the said Rule 161, Government has laid down a procedure whereby a committee is constituted to review the cases of all Government Servants who have attained the age of 55 years and it is on the recommendation of the said committee that a person is retired compulsorily under the said provisions. There is no such safeguard envisaged under the present Rule 8 of the said Rules. However, as stated earlier, the public grounds on which a Government servant can be retired after he completes 20 years of service has been confined to two situations only, both of which have a bearing on the efficiency of the Government servant. Where a Government servant is sought to be retired for impairment of the efficiency, the additional reason required to be stated before passing the order of compulsory retirement is that it should not be desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency against him. Where a Government servant is sought to be retired for impairment of the efficiency, the additional reason required to be stated before passing the order of compulsory retirement is that it should not be desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency against him. In other words, if it is desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency, and therefore to have recourse of the normal procedure of removal of a Government servant after holding an enquiry, it would not be open to the Government to retire a Government servant merely because his efficiency has been impaired. As has also been pointed out earlier, in such cases the exact reason which impelled the Government to retire the Government servant has to be recorded in writing. Bearing in mind these requirements of the said Rule 8 we may now examine whether the impugned order has complied with the same. 5. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:- "AND WHEREAS the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, Maharashtra State, Bombay, being the appropriate authority, is of the opinion that it is in public grounds to retire the said Shri Vasant Shankar Naik, Head Clerk in the office of the Registrar of Firms, Bombay; NOW, therefore, in pursuance of Rule 8 Note (i) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950, the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, Maharashtra State, Bombay, hereby gives notice to the said Shri Vasant Shankar Naik that he shall stand retired from Government service on the 10th day of January 1976". The above recitals in the impugned order make one thing clear that there is nothing in it to show as to the exact reason for which the petitioner has been retired from service. All that has been referred to as a ground is that it is in the public interest to retire the petitioner. As had been pointed out above, the public ground mentioned in Note (i) of the said Rule 8 is confined only to two categories of cases, namely, the impairment of efficiency or less than full efficiency. Further the impugned order also does not say that it was not desirable to level a charge of inefficiency against the petitioner or that the efficiency though not full was not of such a degree as to warrant retirement on compassionate pension. The affidavits in reply filed both by Mr. Shinde on 15th January 1979. Further the impugned order also does not say that it was not desirable to level a charge of inefficiency against the petitioner or that the efficiency though not full was not of such a degree as to warrant retirement on compassionate pension. The affidavits in reply filed both by Mr. Shinde on 15th January 1979. On behalf of the first respondent and by Mr. Palande on 12th February 1979, on behalf of the second respondent do not also take the case of the respondents any further. ]n paragraph 32 of his affidavit, Mr. Shinde has stated that it was not necessary in law to disclose reasons to the employee for his compulsory retirement. He has further denied that the said Rule 8 pre-supposes existence of inefficiency which necessitates premature retirement. He has further denied that the ground of inefficiency did not exit. In the affidavit filed by Mr. Palande, what has been stated is that from the confidential records of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was dealing with the public in a very unfair manner and the petitioner was dealing with the papers negligently, and a reliance is placed on the said confidential records to make out a case that the petitioner was an inefficient employee and it was "in the public interest that a more competent person was appointed in his place and that the petitioner should be made to compulsorily retire under the Rules of the Government". He has added, I was of the view when I passed the said order that it is necessary on public ground that inefficient persons like the petitioner should not be continued till he attains the age of superannuation." Taking as liberal a view as possible of the averments made in the said two affidavits, all that can be said with regard to the Government's case is that the petitioner was found inefficient on the basis of the confidential records or otherwise, and therefore he was sought to be proceeded against under the said provision. No case is made out in either of the two affidavits that a record showing the reason for retiring the petitioner compulsorily was made either before or simultaneously with the impugned order. No case is made out in either of the two affidavits that a record showing the reason for retiring the petitioner compulsorily was made either before or simultaneously with the impugned order. However, it appears that this Court had directed the respondents to give inspection to the petitioner of al1 the relevant records, and pursuant to that, the petitioner had taken inspection of the relevant documents and had come across a cryptic noting which was as follows: "We may serve a notice of retirement on public grounds on Shri Naik, Head Clerk under Rule 8 of the Revised Pensions Rules 1950 for impairment of his efficiency in the work assigned to him vide I & LD File kept below". This note has been annexed at Ex. A to the affidavit in joinder filed by the petitioner. It therefore appears from the averments in the affidavit as well as from this note that the petitioner was sought to be retired compulsorily on the ground of impairment of his efficiency in work. Assuming that this was the record which was made of the reasons for passing the impugned order, it falls too short of the requirement of the said Rule. The rule requires not only that it should be recorded that the employees' efficiency is impaired but also that it is not desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency against him. Admittedly neither the said so-called note recording the reasons for retirement of the petitioner not any other contemporary records nor even the affidavits filed in reply to the petition make out a case anywhere that it was not desirable to make out a formal charge of inefficiency against the employee. It must be remembered in that connection that the power to retire compulsorily a Government servant under this Rule on the ground that there was an impairment of his efficiency without holding an enquiry, is an extraordinary power vested in the Government and recourse to such extraordinary power should be justified by proper reasons. That is, what is intended by the Rule itself. Otherwise, there is no reason why one employee should be proceeded against by following the normal procedure of enquiry and another by a recourse to this particular Rule. That is, what is intended by the Rule itself. Otherwise, there is no reason why one employee should be proceeded against by following the normal procedure of enquiry and another by a recourse to this particular Rule. The said Rule therefore, requires that the recourse to it should be taken only under certain conditions and one of the important conditions in that behalf is that when the Government servant is sought to be retired on the ground of impairment of his efficiency it should also be shown that for such impairment of efficiency it is not desirable to level a formal charge of inefficiency against him. In other word, unless it is shown that it is not desirable to level such a formal charge, the Government servant cannot be retired under this Rule even if there is an impairment of his efficiency. Since the record nowhere shows that the authorities had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency, to invoke the said Rule for retiring the petitioner was patently bad in law. 6. Mr. Master for the respondents contended that the confidential report of the petitioner showed that he was slack in his work and inefficient. As stated earlier, assuming that this confidential report is the only material which could be taken into consideration for retiring the Government servant under this rule for coming to the conclusion that the efficiency of the petitioner had impaired, there is nothing either in this confidential report or in any other record to show that no formal charge could be levelled against the petitioner for the said inefficiency, and the normal procedure of proceeding against him could not be followed. 7. The power given under the said rule is a summary and an extraordinary power it is not absolute, but conditional. The abnormal nature of the power itself has necessitated the imposition of the conditions on the fulfilment of which alone, the power can be exercised. The order passed under it results in material civil consequences to the employee. Hence the conditions imposed cannot but be mandatory. A strict compliance of the conditions must therefore be always insisted upon, and an order passed in disregard of them must fail. The order passed under it results in material civil consequences to the employee. Hence the conditions imposed cannot but be mandatory. A strict compliance of the conditions must therefore be always insisted upon, and an order passed in disregard of them must fail. It is for this reason that I am of the view that on this short ground alone the impugned order of retirement is liable to be struck down. I have, therefore, not considered it necessary to discuss the other grounds on which the impugned order was challenged on behalf of the petitioner. 8. The result is that the petitioner succeeds in this petition. The impugned order dated the 3rd October 1975 is hereby struck down and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, as if, he had never retired from service pursuant to the impugned order, with all the consequential benefits of such reinstatement. The rule is therefore made absolute, accordingly, with costs. The operation of the order is stayed for three weeks from today at the request of the counsel for the respondents. Petition allowed.