Civil Appeal No 174 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 1 11 1974 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No 1971
P P Rao A K Ganguli and R Venkataramani for the Appellant
T A Francis and Miss A Subhashini for the Respondents
Admittedly he was appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General
The only point that arises or at any rate we are concerned with is as to whether the retirement order is in conformity with Rule 2a of the CCS CCA Rules 1965
The appointing 555 authority according to Rule 56j is the competent authority
Who then is the appointing authority in the context of this case The answer is to be sought under Rule 2a which reads thus In these rules unless the context otherwise requires 2 a appointing authority in relation to a Government servant means i the authority empowered to make appointments to the Service of which the Government servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the Service in which the Government servant is for the time being included or ii the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the Government servant for the time being holds or iii the authority which appointed the Government servant to such Service grade or post as the case may be or iv where the Government servant having been a permanent member of any other service of having substantively held any other permanent post has been in continuous employment of the Government the authority which appointed him to that service or to any grade in that service or to that post
whichever authority is the highest authority
 The most significant part of the rule states after setting out alternative authorities that the appointing authority is one out of these four categories who is the highest
This is emphatically brought out by the expression whichever authority is the highest
There is no doubt that among the four classes of authorities listed under Rule 2a the one falling under sub rule iii viz Comptroller and Auditor general in the present case is the highest
It evidently follows that the order of retirement to be legal must be issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General but actually the impugned order of retirement was issued by the Director of Commercial Audit
In fact the order of retirement runs thus Whereas the Director of Commercial Audit is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to to do so  Obviously the Director of Commercial Audit is a lesser official
The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the compulsory retirement is contrary to law
556 The High Court in its extensive judgment considered the scheme of the rules and indeed referred to the point mentioned above but after highlighting this question as one most emphasised by the appellant has slurred over the point and proceeded to discussion of other issues
We are concerned with the vital perhaps the fatal aspect of the order which has not received due attention at the hands of the High Court
In this view on account of the contravention of FR 56j read with Rule 2a of the CCA we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the retirement is illegal
The appellant has already become suparannuated and therefore he will be eligible to his salary by which we mean to include other allowances automatically admissible and going with salary for the period between the date of compulsory retirement and the date of actual superannuation at the age of 58
It is unfortunate that this legal flaw has proved fatal
Administrative law is a course necessary for administrative officers at the highest levels so that such flaws may not vitiate orders they pass
Eventually Government is put to considerable loss for no fault of it except that no proper legal training in this branch of the law for the concerned officers had been given by it
With these observations we allow the appeal but parties will bear their costs
VDK Appeal allowed


Summary:
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court  HELD
Rule 2a of the CCS CCA Rules 1965 states after setting out alternative authorities that the appointing authority is one out of four categories who is the highest by using the expression whichever authority is the highest
There is no doubt that of the four classes of authorities listed under Rule 2a the one falling under sub rule iii viz Comptroller  Auditor General in the present case is the highest
Therefore the order of the retirement to be legal must be issued by the Comptroller  Auditor General
The impugned order of retirement issued by the Director of the Commercial Audit who is a lesser official is contrary to law
On account of the contravention of FR 56j read with rule 2a of the CCS CCA Rules 1965 the retirement is illegal
555 E G 556 B Observation Administrative law is a course necessary for administrative officers at the highest levels so that such flaws may not vitiate orders they pass