Summary
The appellant was compulsorily retired from service by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu by an order dated August 18, 1950, which was as follows: His Highness the Rajpramukh is pleased to retire from 89
service Sardar Dalip Singh, Inspector General of Police, Pepsu (on leave) for administrative reasons with effect from the 18th August, 1950."No charges Were framed against him and it was on his insist- ence that certain charges were communicated to him. Rule 278 of the Patiala State Regulations, 1931 which was then in force, provided as follows :-" 278. For all classes of pensions of person who desires to obtain the pension is required to submit his application before any pension is granted to him.The State reserves to itself the right to retire any of its employees on pension on political or on other reasons."The question for determination in the appeal was whether the compulsory retirement of the appellant amounted to removal or dismissal from service within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The trial Court held in favour of the appellant and the High Court against him, Held, that the two tests laid down by this Court for deter- mining whether an order of compulsory retirement amounted to removal or dismissal from service were (1) whether it was by way of punishment, a charge or imputation against the officer, being made the basis of the exercise of the power, and (2) whether the officer was deprived of any benefit already earned as in a case of dismissal or removal.Shyamlal v. State of U. P., [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26 and State of Bombay v. Subhagchand Doshi, [1958] S.C.R. 571, referred to.So judged, the order passed against the appellant could not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.The order was not one purported to have been made on any charge of misconduct or inefficient and the fact that any such considerations might have weighed with the Government in passing the order under Rule 278 did not amount to any imputation or charge against the officer, and there could be no question of losing any benefit earned since the Rule itself provided for retirement on pension and the officer had in fact been allowed full pension.It would not be correct to say that since the Rule did not fix any age for compulsory retirement, an order of compulsory retirement passed under it must necessarily be regarded as dismissal or removal within the meaning of Art.311(2) of the Constitution.State of Bombay v. Subhagchand Doshi, [1958] S.C.R. 571, ex- plained.See the full content of this document
Extract
Dalip Singh VS. The State Of Punjab.
PETITIONER: DALIP SINGH Vs.RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/07/1960BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DASBENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DASGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.WANCHOO, K.N.HIDAYATULLAH, M.SHAH, J.C.CITATION: 1960 AIR 1305CITATOR INFO : RF 1964 SC 600 (48,49,50,71,105,146,148)D 1967 SC1260 (13)RF 1970 SC 143 (96)R 1971 SC2151 (13,19)R 1976 SC1841 (8)D 1989 SC1843 (16,17)ACT: State Service--Officer, compulsory retirement of--If amounts to dismissal or removal from service--Test--Patiala State Regulations, 1931, Rule 278--Constitution of India, Art.311(2).JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1958.12 90Appeal from the judgment and decree dated...
See the full content of this document