Judgment 1. I have heard Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah, petitioner-in-person, and Mr. Zaki Haider, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.6 at length. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued vide Memo No. 109 dated 19.4.2002, whereby, in exercise of power under Rule 74(a) and (b)(II) of the Bihar Service Code, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from the date of issuance of the said letter i.e., 19.4.2002. The petitioner has prayed for the consequential relief of his reinstatement in service with retrospective effect. 3. The substance of the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 109 dated 19.4.2002 (Annexure" 1) is as follows:- "1. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Senior Personal Assistant, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna, has completed 50 (fifty) years of age. His conduct and, efficiency is not fit to be retained in service. Therefore, exercising powers conferred under Rule 74(a) and (b)(II) of Bihar Service Code, a decision has been taken to compulsorily retire Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah, Senior Personal Assistant, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. A decision has been taken to pay Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah, amounts equivalent to three months salary and allowances in lieu of three months notice in compliance of Rule 74(b)(II) of the Bihar Service Code. The order will be effective from the date of issuance of the letter." 4. The abovementioned impugned letter has been forwarded to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna for information and necessary action with a request to him to the effect that Shri Sah be paid the amount equivalent to three months' salary and allowances in lieu of three months notice within a period of fifteen days. As per pleadings in the writ application, the petitioner's date of birth is 3.7.1945. He joined his service as Steno-typist in the year 1968. He thus completed 50 years of age on 3.7.1995 and 30 years of service in the year 1998. In course of time he was promoted as Senior Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- in the rank of Class-II Gazetted Officer. 5. He joined his service as Steno-typist in the year 1968. He thus completed 50 years of age on 3.7.1995 and 30 years of service in the year 1998. In course of time he was promoted as Senior Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- in the rank of Class-II Gazetted Officer. 5. The plea of the petitioner in the writ application is that he maintained an unblemished record in his service career and because of his efficiency and calibre he was deputed to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Shah Commission of Inquiry as Stenographer Grade-"C" in the year 1977 and had worked with D.I.G., Shah Commission of Inquiry till continuation of the Commission. 6. Questioning the legality of the order under challenge, it has been pleaded in the writ application that neither any notice nor any kind of show-cause was ever issued to the petitioner before passing the said order and therefore it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has further been pleaded that petitioner has been victimized and discriminated vis-a-vis, the persons similarly situated in the Government service. 7. Petitioner, appearing in person has also pleaded that as public interest has not been mentioned in the impugned order as reason for retiring him compulsorily, the same can't be said to have been passed under Rule 74(b)(II) of the Code and the order is, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case sworn by Under Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, justifying the action of compulsorily retiring the petitioner in public interest. The State has brought on record the circumstance in which the Department had to take the decision to retire the petitioner prematurely in exercise of statutory power. 9. The Bihar Service Code is a Code of Rules which apply to all Government servants of the State of Bihar and lays down the service conditions of such Government employees. Rule 74 of the Code, which is relevant for the purpose of the present case and deals with situations where a Government servant can be ordered or allowed to prematurely retire (compulsory retirement/voluntary retirement) before attaining the age of superannuation is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "74. Rule 74 of the Code, which is relevant for the purpose of the present case and deals with situations where a Government servant can be ordered or allowed to prematurely retire (compulsory retirement/voluntary retirement) before attaining the age of superannuation is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "74. (a) The State Government may require any Government servant who has completed twenty one years of duty and twenty-five years of total service calculated from the date of his first appointment to retire from Government service, if it considers that his efficiency or conduct is not such as to justify his retention in service. Where any Government servant is so required to retire no claim to any special compensation shall be entertained. [(b)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-rule a Government servant may, after giving at least three months previous notice, in writing, to the appointing authority concerned retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that no Government servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government] [provided further that in case of the officers and servants of the Patna High Court (including those of Circuit Bench at Ranchi) under the rule making authority of the Chief Justice, no such officer and servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the Chief Justice.] [(ii) the appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three month's previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three month's pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest, to retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice.] (iii) A Government servant who retires voluntarily is required to retire in public interest under this rule on attaining the age of 50 years, or completing qualifying service of 30 years, shall be entitled to retiring pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity.]" 10. From reading of the above quoted rule and the facts pertaining to petitioner's date of birth and number of years of his service in the State Government it is apparent the State Government of Bihar/the Appointing Authority were well within their jurisdiction to consider exercising power under the said rule. In the above background what needs to be decided in the present case in view of the submission made by the petitioner-in-person is as to whether the impugned action is; (a) violative of principles of natural justice as no notice was given and the order is non-speaking; (b) based on no material and is, therefore, arbitrary; (c) illegal because "public interest? has not been mentioned in the order as being a reason for premature retirement; (d) punitive in nature and is stigmatic; 11. It is no more res integra that compulsory or premature retirement does not amount to punishment as there is no element of imputation or stigma in such case. While dealing with a similar provision under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha reported in (1970)2 SCC 458 that there was no obligation to comply with the principle of natural justice for making an order of compulsory retirement. The Court held in that case that the right conferred on the appropriate authority to retire a Government servant compulsorily was absolute one, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rules one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. Court further held that if the appropriate authority bona fide formed that opinion, the correctness of that opinion can be challenged before the Courts. 12. In case of Rajendra Singh Verma vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2011)10 SCC 1 the Supreme Court has reiterated that compulsory retirement from service is neither dismissal nor removal; it differs from both of them, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules and involves no penal consequences inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits proportionate to the period of service standing at his credit. The Supreme Court in clear terms held that an order of compulsory retirement being not an order of adverse consequence, principles of natural justice have no application. The Supreme Court in clear terms held that an order of compulsory retirement being not an order of adverse consequence, principles of natural justice have no application. This view has been restated in a recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2012)8 SCC 58 ; R.C. Chandel vs. High Court of M.P. 13. As regards the plea of the impugned order being non-speaking the Supreme Court has held in case of Union of India vs. Dulal Dutt reported in (1993)2 SCC 179 that the order of compulsory retirement is not to be reasoned one. Placing reliance on the case of Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripadaha, (1992)2 SCC 299 ; Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha (supra) and R.L. Butail vs. Union of India, (1970)2 SCC 876 the Supreme Court has held that an order of compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature. It however, held that such order must be passed on materials and has to be based on subjective satisfaction of the Government. The Supreme Court in clear terms held that no order of compulsory retirement is required to be a speaking order. 14. The plea that the impugned order cannot be said to be in public interest because "public interest" has not been mentioned in the impugned order cannot be accepted. What is in the interest of the institution which the Government servants serves is the public interest. It is true that unless there is element of public interest to compulsorily retire a Government servant, the power under Rule 74(b)(II) cannot be exercised. Reference may be made in this context to Apex Court judgment in National Aviation Company of India Limited vs. S.M.K. Khan reported in (2009)5 SCC 732 , paragraph 23 of which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "23. The learned counsel for the respondent next submitted that recourse to "compulsory retirement" should be only in "public interest"; and that in this case, as neither the Regulations nor the order of compulsory retirement referred to public interest, the compulsory retirement was vitiated. This contention has not merit. "Public interest" is used in the context of compulsory retirement of Government servants while considering service under the State. The concept of public interest would get replaced by "institutional interest" or "utility to the employer" where the employer is a statutory authority or a Government company and not the Government. This contention has not merit. "Public interest" is used in the context of compulsory retirement of Government servants while considering service under the State. The concept of public interest would get replaced by "institutional interest" or "utility to the employer" where the employer is a statutory authority or a Government company and not the Government. When the performance of an employee is inefficient or his service is unsatisfactory, it is prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the institution and is of no utility to the employer. Therefore, compulsory retirement can be resorted to (on a review of the service on completion of specified years of service or reaching a specified age) in terms of the relevant rules or regulations, where retention is not in the interests of the institution or of utility to the employer. It is however necessary to use the words "not in the interests of the institution" or "service not of utility to the employer" in the order of compulsory retirement' as the Regulation provides that no reason need be assigned." 15. I am thus of the opinion that no show-cause notice is required before exercise of the power under Rule 74(b)(II) of the Bihar Service Code nor the order is required to be detailed and speaking. There is no pleading in the writ application alleging violation of any mandatory requirement as contained in Rule 74(b)(II). 16. Form the reading of the impugned order, the same does not appear to be stigmatic. After going through the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar I am of the view that the impugned order of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be without any basis. The counter affidavit refers to the communication made by the Finance Department dated 4.1.2002 and 29.1.2002 touching to the conduct of the petitioner vis-a-vis his colleagues and superiors. Similar grievance was made by the Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education vide letter dated 19.7.2001 (Annexure-C). In view of the materials on record I do not find it appropriate, in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.4.2002 (Annexure-1). Similar grievance was made by the Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education vide letter dated 19.7.2001 (Annexure-C). In view of the materials on record I do not find it appropriate, in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.4.2002 (Annexure-1). This has to be noted that the petitioner would have otherwise superannuated in July, 2003 and further that he is entitled for full pension and retiral benefits on the basis of the period of service already rendered by him as a Government Servant. 17. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. No order as to costs. 19. As the petitioner appeared in person at the time of hearing of the case and is represented by no lawyer on his behalf, let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the petitioner at his address mentioned in the writ petition through registered post.