Case: Dalip Singh Vs. The State Of Punjab

of the learned counsel that Rule 278 was not applicable to the case of the appellant on August 18, 1950, is therefore totally without foundation.8. This brings us to the main contention in the case viz., that the compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 278 of the Patiala State Regulations was a removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution. The question whether the termination of service by compulsory retirement in accordance with Service Rules amount to removal from service was considered by this Court in Shyamlal v. State of U. P. 1955-1 SCR 26 : (AIR 1954 SC 369 ) and again recently in State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, 1958 SCR 571 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 892 ).The Court decided in Shyam Lals Case 1955-1 SCR 26 : (AIR 1954 SC 369 ) that two tests had to be applied for ascertaining whether a termination of service by compulsory retirement amounted to removal or dismissal so as to attract the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution. The first is whether the action is by way of punishment and to find that out the Court said that it was necessary that a charge or imputation against the officer is made the condition of the exercise of the power; the second is whether by compulsory retirement the officer is losing the benefit he has already earned as he does by dismissal or removal.In that case in fact a charge-sheet was drawn up against the officer and an enquiry held but ultimately the order of compulsory retirement was not based on the result of the enquiry. The Court pointed out that the enquiry was merely to help the Government to make up its mind as to whether it was in the public interest to dispense with his services so that the imputation made in the charge-sheet was not being made the condition of the exercise of the power.9. These tests were applied in Doshis Case, 1958 SCR 571 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 892 ) and it was held that the provisions of compulsory retirement under Rule 165-A of the Saurashtra Civil Service Rules under which the order of retirement was made there was not violative of Art. 311 (2).It was pointed out that "while misconduct and inefficiency are factors that enter into the account where the order is one of dismissal or removal or of retirement, there is this difference that while in the case of retirement they merely furnish the background and the enquiry, if held-and there is no duty to hold an enquiry-is only for the satisfaction of the authorities who have to take action, in the case of dismissal or removal, they form the very basis on which the order is made and the enquiry thereon must be formal, and must satisfy the rules of natural justice and the requirements of Art. 311 (2)."10. In the case before us the order of the Rajpramukh does not purport to be passed on any charge of misconduct or inefficiency. All its states is that the compulsory retirement is for "administrative reasons". It was only after the appellants own insistence to be supplied with the grounds which led to the decision that certain charges were communicated to him.There is therefore no basis for saying that the order of retirement contained any imposition or charge against the officer. The fact that considerations of misconduct or inefficiency weighed with the Government in coming to its conclusion whether any action should be taken under Rule 278 does not amount to any imputation or charge against the officer.11. Applying the other test, viz., whether the officer has lost the benefit he has earned, we find that the officer has been allowed full pension.There is no question of his having lost a benefit earned. It may be pointed out that Rule 278 itself provides for retirement on pension. If the provision had been for retirement without pension in accordance with the rules there might have been some reason to hold that the retirement was by way of punishment. As however the retirement can only be on pension in accordance with the rules-in the present case full pension has been granted to the officer-the order of retirement is clearly not by way of punishment.12. In Doshis Case, 1958 SCR 571 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 892 ) there is at p. 579 (of SCR): (at p. 895 of AIR) an observation which might at first sight seem to suggest that in the opinion of this Court compulsory retirement not amounting to dismissal or removal could only take place under a rule fixing an age for compulsory retirement.We do not think that was what the Court intended to say in Doshis Case 1958 SCR 571 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 892 ).In Doshis Case 1958 SCR 571 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 892 ) there was in fact a rule fixing an age for compulsory retirement, at the age of 55, and in addition another rule for compulsory retirement after an officer had completed the age of 50 or 25 years of service. It was in that context that the Court made the above observation. It had not in that case to deal with a rule which did provide for compulsory retirement, at any age whatsoever irrespective of the length of service put in. It will not be proper to read the observations in Doshis Case 1958 SCR 571 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 892 ) referred to above as laying down the law that retirement under the rule we are considering must necessarily be regarded as dismissal or removal within the meaning of Art. 311.13. We are therefore of opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the order of compulsory retirement made against the appellant was not removal from service so as to attract the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution and that the suit was rightly dismissed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. This makes it clear that up to the publication in 1952 of Volume III of the Pepsu Service Regulations the pension rules appearing in the 1931 edition of the Patiala State Regulations continued to be applicable to Pepsu. On August 18, 1950, therefore it is reasonable to hold that Rule 278 in its entirety remained in force and was applicable to Pepsu. It is interesting to mention that in this 1952 edition also this reservation by the Government of the "right to retire any of its employees on pension on political or on other "reasons" has been maintained (Vide Chapter V, Rule 10). The contention of the learned counsel that Rule 278 was not applicable to the case of the appellant on August 18, 1950, is therefore totally without foundation.In the case before us the order of the Rajpramukh does not purport to be passed on any charge of misconduct or inefficiency. All its states is that the compulsory retirement is for "administrative reasons". It was only after the appellants own insistence to be supplied with the grounds which led to the decision that certain charges were communicated to him.There is therefore no basis for saying that the order of retirement contained any imposition or charge against the officer. The fact that considerations of misconduct or inefficiency weighed with the Government in coming to its conclusion whether any action should be taken under Rule 278 does not amount to any imputation or charge against the officer.11. Applying the other test, viz., whether the officer has lost the benefit he has earned, we find that the officer has been allowed full pension.There is no question of his having lost a benefit earned. It may be pointed out that Rule 278 itself provides for retirement on pension. If the provision had been for retirement without pension in accordance with the rules there might have been some reason to hold that the retirement was by way of punishment. As however the retirement can only be on pension in accordance with the rules-in the present case full pension has been granted to the officer-the order of retirement is clearly not by way of punishment.We are therefore of opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the order of compulsory retirement made against the appellant was not removal from service so as to attract the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution and that the suit was rightly dismissed.