Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.56 seconds)Article 310 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Chandra Mohan Nigam & Others on 19 September, 1977
Learned counsel for Reddy heavily relied on the
decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Ors. (supra) and contended that as
the Government of India while passing the impugned order had
not considered the report of the Review Committee the order
is vitiated by an error of law. We have-gone through this
decision and we are unable to agree with the contentions put
forward by learned counsel for Reddy. The decision referred
to above is not an authority for holding that the decision
of the Review Committee is binding on the Government of
India. All that is necessary is that the Government of India
should, before passing an order under rule 16(3) consider
the report of the Review Committee which is based on full
and completed analysis of the history of the service of the
employee concerned. In the instant case, it is clearly
pleaded by the appellants in the High Court that the report
of the Review Committee was in fact considered by the
Government of India before passing the impugned order. The
confidential file placed before us also clearly shows that
on the note sheet the notes by the
754
Secretary on the recommendations of the Review Committee the
Home Minister, Mr K. Brahmananda Reddy has appended his
signatures and has passed the order that Reddy should be
compulsorily retired.
Madan Mohan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 February, 1973
and then relies on certain observations of this Court in
order to hold that the termination of service of the officer
casts a stigma on his character and attracts Article 311(2)
of the Constitution. The learned Judge further relied on a
decision of this Court in support of the proposition that a
judgment rendered by S Judges of the Supreme Court would
prevail over a judgment of a smaller Bench. So far this part
of the observation is concerned, there can be no doubt. But
the learned Judge appears to have completely misconstrued
the decision in Madan Mohan 's case (supra) which was not a
case of compulsory retirement at all, nor was it a case
where the officer concerned was retired under a rule like
rule 56(j) or 16(3) as we have indicated in this case. On
the other hand, in that case what happened was that the
officer was appointed as a temporary Munsif and under the
terms of the notification by which he was appointed it was
provided that the appointment of temporary Munsif could be
terminated by giving one month's notice. The High Court it
appears, was not satisfied with the work of Munsif and
accordingly decided to terminate his services. But the Chief
Minister in one of his speeches on the floor of the House
had made certain observations implying that the services of
the Munsif were being terminated on account of inefficiency
and misconduct. In these peculiar circumstances, therefore,
this Court held that the termination of the Munsif even
though he was a temporary servant cast a stigma and,
therefore, attracted Article 311 of the Constitution. In
this connection, the Court observed as follows:-
Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954
In the case of Shyam Lal v. The State cf Uttar Pradesh
& Anr.(1) This Court clearly held that compulsory retirement
does not amount to removal or termination nor does it
involve any stigma. In this connection, a Bench of 5 Hon'ble
Judges of this Court observed as follows:-
Smt. S. R. Venkataraman vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 November, 1978
Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for Reddy
on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Smt. S.R.
Venkataraman v. Union of India & Anr. The facts of this
case, however, are, clearly distinguishable from the facts
of the present case. In that case there was a finding of
fact by this Court that the order of retirement was mala
fide and amounted to victimisation and the allegation made
by the appellant before this Court were not only not
disputed but counsel for the Union of India went to the
extent of saying that he was not in a position to support
the impugned order which was
755
unfair. It was in the background of these circumstances that
the Court held that the order was malafide and observed as
follows:-
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mayenghoan Rahamohan Singh vs The Chief Commissioner (Admn.) Manipur ... on 1 November, 1976
In a recent decision of this Court in the case of
Mayenghoan Rahamohan Singh v. The Chief Commissioner (Admn.)
Manipur & Ors. the Court observed as follows:-
Shivacharana Singh T.G. & Ors vs State Of Mysore on 13 March, 1964
The same principle was reiterated by another Bench of S
Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the case of T. G.
Shivacharan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Mysore.(1) In this
case, the Court was considering the scope of rule 285 which
was almost in the same terms as rule 16 (3) and provided
that a Government servant could be retired, after completing
qualifying service of 30 years or on attaining the age of 50
years if such retirement was considered in public interest.
In this connection, the Court observed as follows:-