Case: T. D. Subramaniam Alias Satyapalan Vs. Union of India and Others

1. This is a somewhat extraordinary case. The special leave petition is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirming an order passed by a Single Judge of that court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner before us. In the writ petition the petitioner questioned the validity of an order of compulsory retirement made against him. He was posted as Directed of Posts and Telegraphs, Orissa Circle, with headquarters at Cuttack, in January 1964 when he was asked to go to Ambala as Director of Posts and Telegraphs. The order of compulsory retirement appears to have been made because the petitioner disobeyed the order of transfer. The petitioner took leave up to August 2, 1964 and even thereafter he did not report for duty at Ambala. The charges against the petitioner were that he had overstayed leave without permission and that he deliberately disobeyed the order of transfer. According to the petitioner the order of transfer was mala fide as it was made under pressure from the Posts and Telegraphs Employees Unions and political leaders associated with them.

Court's reasoning:
In the facts of the case we are inclined to agree with the High Court that the order of transfer was made in the exigencies of service.4. The petitioner has been found to be lacking in tact. It seems exercising tact when according to the petitioner firmness was called for was against his principles. Apparently "tact" is also one of the qualities that a government officer is required to possess, and in the situation described above the petitioner left no option to the authorities. However in these circumstances we do not think any stigma in the sense in which the word is ordinarily understood attaches to the petitioner because of the order of compulsory retirement passed against him.