1980 INSC 0440
                                            State of Punjab and Others

                                                           Vs

                                                  Bakhtawar Singh

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1902 of 1980

                                     (P. S. Pathak , O. Chinnappa Reddy JJ )

                                                      12.11.1980

                                                     JUDGMENT

R. S. PATHAK, J. ­

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an appellate judgment of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana affirming the quashing of a notice retiring the respondent prematurely from
Government service.

2. The respondent was a Naib Tehisildar in the service of the State of Punjab. It was intended to
institute criminal proceedings against him under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
but the State Government, being of opinion that sanction could not be granted to the proceedings,
instead directed the Commissioner, Patiala Division, to institute proceedings for the respondent's
premature retirement.

3. On May 16, 1968, the Commissioner made an order under Rule 25(2)(c)(i) of the Punjab
Tehsildar Rule, 1932 prematurely retiring the respondent inasmuch as he had attained the age of 55
years. The respondent filed a writ petition against the order, and a learned single Judge quashed the
order on the ground that the Commissioner had not applied his own judgment to the question
whether the respondent should be prematurely retired, and had acted entirely at the behest of the
State Government. A letters patent appeal by the appellants was dismissed by an Appellant Bench of
the High Court.

4. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has been unable to place before us the Punjab
Tehsildar Rules, 1932 for the purpose of showing that the judgment under appeal is erroneous. In
the circumstances, it is not possible for us to decide whether the High Court is wrong in the view it
has taken. There is the further circumstances that the respondent, had he continued in service until
the age of superannuation, would have retired some years ago. We do not think, in the
circumstances, that we should grant relief in this appeal.

5. Accordingly, then appeal is dismissed. As the respondent has not entered appearance, there is no
order as to costs.

</html