Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. RAMANATHA PILLAI
Versus
State of Kerala
Decided on ; August 27, 1973
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 19, 310, 311, 14, 31 – Suspension of Chairman of Kerala Public Service Commision – Appellant raised three principal contentions in High court. – First, that the abolition of the post of Vigilance Commissioner amounted to removal of the appellant from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution . – Second, that the abolition of the post was made mala fide. – Third, the appellant entered into an agreement with the government and by accepting the offer changed his position and the State was precluded from altering the terms of agreement on the principle of estoppel. – High court did not accept any of contentions. – Held, Estoppel alleged by the appellant Ramanatha Pillai was on the ground that he entered into an agreement and thereby changed his position to his detriment. – High court rightly held that the courts exclude the operation of the doctrine of estoppel, when it is found that the authority against whom estoppel is pleaded has owed a duty to the public against whom the estoppel cannot fairly operate. – Object was not to abolish the Vigilance Commission and only to terminate the services of the appellant – High court held that the State entertained doubts as to the advisability of establishing Vigilance Commission even before it was constituted in 1965. – After the retirement of the first Vigilance Commissioner P. D. Nandana Menon the question was again considered. – Views were expressed that the Commission had not worked satisfactorily. – State, therefore, decided to abolish the Vigilance Commission. – High court rightly held that the exigencies of administration required alterations in the establishment and creation of a new department. – This is a governmental function and a policy decision. – High court was correct that there was no reason to hold that there was colourable exercise of power by the State. – Right to hold a post comes to an end on the abolition of the post which a government servant holds. – A government servant cannot complain of a violation of Article 19 (l) (f) and Article 31 of the Constitution when the post is abolished. – Article 14 is not attracted on the facts of the present cases. – Appeals Dismissed
Judgment
RAY, C. J, J.
( 1 ) CIVIL No. 275 of 1971 is by certificate from the judgment dated 6/08/1970 of the High court of Kerala. The appellant is M. Ramanatha Pillai.
( 2 ) CIVIL No. 2231 of 1970 is by certificate from the judgment dated 29/09/1970 of the High court of Punjab and H,aruyna. The appellants are S. Ajit Singh and Jamna Dass Akhtar.
( 3 ) CIVIL No. 248 of 1971 is by certificate from the judgment dated 30/09/1970 of the High court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants are seven in number. They are Kulbhushan Lal, Krishna Lal, Jagdev Singh, Shanti Sarup, Dilawar Singh, Ram Asra and Inder Lal.
( 4 ) THE facts in Civil No. 275 of 1971 are these. A Vigilance Commission was constituted for the State of Kerala by an order dated 29/05/1965. The government of Kerala on O 26/10/1965 sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of Vigilanca Commissioner for a period of three years from 3/06/1965. P. D. Nandana Menon assumed charge as Vigilance Commissioner in that temporary post.
( 5 ) BY an order dated 16/04/1966 the government of Kerala defined the connstitutuion, jurisdiction, powers and functions of the Commission. The Order stated that the Commission would be headed by a full time officer designated as Vigilance Commissioner. The Vigilance Commissioner under the older was to be appointed by the governor of the State and was not to be removed or suspended from office except in the manner provided for the removal or suspension of the Chairman of the Kerala Public Service Commision On 24/01/1968 the continuance of the temporary post was sanctioned for a period of one year with effect from 3/06/1968. Manwhile P. D Nandana Menon retired from the post.
( 6 ) BY an Older dated 24/09/1968 the appellant Ramanatha Pillai was appointed as Vigilance Commissioner on a consolidated pay of R. s. 2,500 of his assuming change vier P. D. N andana Menon retired. By an order dated 2/11/1968 the government of Kerala ordered that the Vigilance Commissioner would hold offce for a period of five years or till he attained the age of60 years whichever was earlier. By an order dated 15/11/1968 sanction was accorded to the continuance of the temporary post of the Vigilance Commissioner till 28/02/1970.
( 7 ) THERE was an agreement dated 20/12/1968 between the appellant Ramanatha Pillai and the government of Kerala. The agreement provided that the term of appointment was to be for a period of live years from 3/10/1968 or till the appellant attained the age of 60 years whichever is earlier. The agreement further stated that the appellant is not to be removed or suspended from office except in the manner provided for removal or suspension of the Chairman or Members of the State public service commission.
( 8 ) BY an order dated 24/02/1970 the government of Kerala stated that the post of Vigilance Commissioner sanctioned was temporary and the "rcsent sanction tor the post of Vigilance Commissioner will expire on 28/02/1970 and that for the staff of the Commission will expire on Nuary 28, 1971". The order further stated that the government havnig considered all aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that there was no need to have a Vigilance Commissioner. The government, therefore, ordered that the post of Vigilance Commissioner would be abolished with effect from 28/02/1970. The continuance of the staff of the Commission up to 15/03/1970 was sanctioned to enable the office of the Commission to wind up its work. It may be stated here that in the government order dated 3/12/1969 sanction for the continuance of the staff in temporary posts from 1/03/1970 to Fe 28/02/1971 was accorded. The affidavit evidence of the government of Kerala about the continuance of the temporary posts in the staff of the Vigilance Commission till 28/02/1971 is that the budget for 1970-71 was prepared in advance of the presentation of the proposal in the Legislature. At the time when the proposals were forwarded by the Administrative Departments concomed with the establish
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
