Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.35 seconds)Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and dismissed the petition of Sri J.N. Sinha. Subsequently, a review petition was filed before the Supreme Court. It was contended on behalf of Sri Sinha that several questions had been raised before the High Court, which had not been decided and the High Court had allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the compulsory retirement violated the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity to show cause had been given to the petitioner in that case, but the other points had not been decided by the High Court. The Supreme Court by its order dated 18th November, 1970, allowed the review petition, it vacated its order directing that the petition stood dismissed, and remanded the proceedings to the High Court to be dealt with and disposed of on all such points as had not been dealt with in the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 310 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdish Mitter vs Union Of India on 20 September, 1963
The recital, in the impugned order, that the petitioner was compulsorily retired in public interest, necessarily implied that public interest would suffer, if he was not compulsorily retired. Since no efficient and useful officer is compulsorily retired, and, generally, only those officers are retired compulsorily, who are found unfit to continue in service, or against whom there are charges of inefficiency or misconduct; therefore, any person, reading the impugned order in a reasonable manner, would come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not efficient, or that there were charges of misconduct or inefficiency against him. The fact that the petitioner's services were dispensed with in public interest caused damage to his reputation and attached a stigma to him. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Madhan Mohan Nagar , and Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India , and a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 12th January, 1971, in Writ No. 3010 of 1970.
Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954
12. There may be cases where the Government may, in order to energise its machinery, decide to dispense with the services of Government servants, who may have become static in their progress, or who may be inefficient, or against whom there may be complaints of misconduct. The Government may not choose to hold any departmental proceedings to punish those officers; instead, it may choose to compulsorily retire such officers in exercise of its powers under Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations. It is correct that no Government servant is compulsorily retired without there being any reason for the same. The Government, in some cases, may be, in passing the order of compulsory retirement, motivated for weeding out inefficient officers, but that cannot be taken into account to hold that the order of compulsory retirement casts stigma on the Government servant or that the order was an order of punishment. It is well-accepted principle that, unless and until the order is founded upon charges of misconduct or inefficiency, motive operating in the mind of the authority concerned cannot change the nature of the order from that of compulsory retirement to an order of punishment. Compulsory retirement in itself has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity. The contention that an order of compulsory retirement impliedly contains a stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity, was rejected by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. . The Supreme Court made the following observations (page 374, col. 2):
The State Of Bombay vs Saubhagchand M. Doshi on 25 September, 1957
In The State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi , validity of an order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 165-A of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, as adopted and amended by Saurashtra Government, was under consideration. Under Rule 165-A, the Saurashtra Government retained an absolute right to retire any Government servant after he completed 25 years of qualifying service, without giving any reasons. According to Rule 165-A, the right of compulsorily retiring a Government servant was not to be exercised except when it was considered necessary in public interest to dispense with the services of a Government servant on account of inefficiency or dishonesty. The Saurashtra Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the said rule, passed an order of compulsory retirement against Sri Doshi. Before the Supreme Court it was urged on behalf of Sri Doshi that the order of compulsory retirement was by way of punishment, as the order was passed on account of inefficiency or dishonesty of Sri Doshi, which was the requirement of the rule itself for passing an order of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court repelled this contention. Venkatarama Aiyar, J., speaking for the Court, made the following observation:--
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 1953
In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab , the order of compulsory retirement was passed in the following terms:--