US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor Raj Bhawan, Patna. – Appellant
Versus
Mehfooz Alam – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.5.2022 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow CWJC no.23655 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner-respondent no.1.
3. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that he was working as a daily wage employee in the Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar at Patna when on 27.11.1991, he was made a Class-III employee. His service was regularised as Lower Division Clerk on 3.1.2008 and he was working in the said capacity in the Governor’s Secretariat when by the order impugned dated 2.7.2018, purportedly passed under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, the writ petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.
4. Challenging the said order in CWJC no.23655 of 2018, the writ application having been allowed, the instant appeal has been preferred by the writ respondent nos. 2 and 3.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ respondentsappellants submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed under
Compulsory retirement under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code does not require prior notice or a charge memo, and is not considered punitive, thus principles of natural justice do not apply.
The assessment of an employee's entire service record is crucial for deciding on compulsory retirement, and the order must be based on proper grounds and subjective satisfaction of the authority.
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and serves public interest by weeding out ineffective employees, validated by a consistent record of penalties.
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
Listen Article