Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.60 seconds)T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
... in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals
or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or
in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of
natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction
vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face
of the record....'
In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa,
(1954) 1 SCC 905] the law was thus stated : (SCC p. 915, para
Section 4 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
"13. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the
court finds that the process does not conform to the law or statute.
In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with
the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process
MONIKA VERMA
2026.04.16 09:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
chandigarh
CWP-39044-2025(O&M) -4-
along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be
issued to remedy all violations. When a tribunal is constituted, it is
expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory
violation. A question as to whether such a violation would be over a
mandatory prescription as against a discretionary one is primarily
within the domain of the Tribunal. So also, the issue governing
waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel. We wish to place reliance on the
decision of this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
[Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881 :
Parry & Co. Ltd vs Commercial Employees' ... on 10 April, 1952
"24. Then the question is whether there are proper grounds for
the issue of certiorari in the present case. There was
considerable argument before us as to the character and scope
of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it could
be issued. The question has been considered by this Court in
Parry & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Employees' Assn. [Parry &
Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Employees' Assn., (1952) 1 SCC 449] ,
G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. [G. Veerappa
Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., (1952) 1 SCC 334] , Ebrahim
Aboobakar v. Custodian of Evacuee Property [Ebrahim
Aboobakar v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, (1952) 1 SCC
798] and quite recently in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905] . On these
authorities, the following propositions may be taken as
established:
A.R.R. Enterprises And A.R.R. Nut Corn ... vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Central ... on 19 March, 2004
26. The counsel for appellant also relied upon the judgement of B.R.
Sharma (supra), in which the riotous behaviour of the employee was
found proved. However, the said judgment does not apply in the facts
of the present case.
Shyamlal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 February, 1963
(Emphasis supplied)
5.2 A conjoint reading of the principles laid down by the
Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Lal (supra)
and Moti Ram Deka (supra), together with Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972, clearly delineates the distinction between
"compulsory retirement" and "termination" for the purpose of forfeiture of
gratuity. The Constitution Benches have unequivocally held that dismissal
or removal is a punitive measure, entailing stigma and loss of accrued
benefits, whereas even where compulsory retirement is imposed as a
penalty, it does not entail loss of accrued benefits nor does it carry the same
consequences as dismissal or removal, but merely curtails the future tenure
of service. In contradistinction, Section 4(6)(b) predicates forfeiture of
gratuity exclusively upon "termination" of services on specified grounds
such as riotous or disorderly conduct, acts of violence, or offences involving
moral turpitude, each of which inherently postulates a punitive severance of
service founded on proved misconduct.
Union Of India And Ors vs Shri Dulal Dutt on 5 February, 1993
5.3 Conclusively a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Shri Dulal Dutt 1993 INSC 47, examined the
order of compulsory retirement of a Controller of Stores in Indian Railway
MONIKA VERMA
2026.04.16 09:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
chandigarh
CWP-39044-2025(O&M) -9-
and held that an order of compulsory retirement is not an order of
punishment. It is a prerogative of the Government but it should be based on
material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the
Government and that it is not required to be a speaking order. The Hon'ble
Apex Court while speaking through Justice Yogeshwar Dayal held as
under:
R. L. Butail vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 September, 1970
"18. It will be noticed that the Tribunal completely erred in assuming,
in the circumstances of the case, that there ought to have been a
speaking order for compulsory retirement. This Court, has been
repeatedly emphasising right from the case of R.L Butail v. Union of
India, (1970) 2 SCC 876 and Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, (1970) 2
SCC 458 that an order of a compulsory retirement is not an order of
punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government but it
should be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective
satisfaction of the Government. Very often, on enquiry by the Court
the Government may disclose the material but it is very much different
from the saying that the order should be a speaking order. No order
of compulsory retirement is required to be a speaking order. From the
very order of the Tribunal it is clear that the Government had, before
it, the report of the Review Committee yet it thought it fit of
compulsory retiring the respondent. The order cannot be called either
mala fide or arbitrary in law.:"