SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Cal) 144

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
RAMESH CHANDRA CHATTERJEE - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF OBSERVATORIES - Respondent
Civil Rule 673  Of  1952
Decided On : JUNE 26, 1953

Advocates Appeared:
BALAI LAL PAL, BANERJI, NARESH NATH BANERJI, PRITI BHUSAN BURMAN

The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution extends only to persons or authorities who are within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 226 - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF OBSERVATORIES - WHETHER AMENABLE TO JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT - WHETHER ARTICLE 311 (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND RULE 55 OF C. S. (C. C. A.) RULES APPLICABLE - WHETHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING MUST BE GRANTED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a ministerial government servant, was served with a charge-sheet alleging inefficiency and was ordered to retire compulsorily at the age of 55 years. He challenged the order on the grounds that the appointing authority was not the Director-General of Observatories, who had issued the order, but the Government of India, and that he was not given an opportunity to present his case personally and produce witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Director-General of Observatories, as he did not normally carry on his activities within the State of West Bengal and was therefore not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Rule 55 of C. S. (C. C. A.) Rules, as compulsory retirement under F. R. 56 (b) did not involve any indiscipline or misconduct.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Director-General of Observatories. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Rule 55 of C. S. (C. C. A.) Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution extends only to persons or authorities who are within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. The Director-General of Observatories did not normally carry on his activities within the State of West Bengal and was therefore not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Rule 55 of C. S. (C. C. A.) Rules apply only to cases of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank for indiscipline or misconduct. Compulsory retirement under F. R. 56 (b) does not involve any indiscipline or misconduct and is therefore not covered by these provisions.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application directed against an order dated 20-1-1952 passed by the officiating Director-General of Observatories, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to retire from service on 20-1-1952, on attaining the age of 55 years. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to continue in service until he has attained the age of 60 years.

( 2 ) THE facts are briefly as follows: The petitioner joined Government service in 1929, at Karachi Thereafter he continued in such service, obtained promotions in his permanent cadre as well as officiated in higher posts. In 1943. he was transferred to the office of the Director Regional Meteorological Centre, Alipore, Calcutta. In 1947, the petitioner elected to accept the scale of pay prescribed by the Central Civil Services (Revision of pay) Rules 1947, and his post came to be known as that of a 'scientific Assistant'.

( 3 ) ON or about 21-11-1950, the petitioner was transferred to a temporary post under the Damodar Valley Corporation as a Senior Accountant. On or about 13-7-1951, it was communicated to him that although by the letter of the Ministry of Communications No. 1-M (1)/50 dated 29-6-1950 the post of a Scientific Assistant was declared to toe a non-ministerial one, as a personal concession, the petitioner would be continued to be treated as a ministerial servant for the purposes Of F. R. 56.

( 4 ) UNDER F. R. 56, a non-ministerial Government Servant must retire at the age of 55 except in the special circumstances mentioned therein. A ministerial Government servant should ordinarily be retained until the age of 60 if he continues to be efficient, but may be required to retire at the age of 55 years. To put it more simply, a, ministerial government servant may be compelled to retire at the age of 55, if he does not continue to be efficient.

( 5 ) 'ministerial Servant' has been defined (F. R. 9 (17) Section III Ch. II) to mean a Government servant of a subordinate service whose duties are entirely clerical, and any other class of servant specially defined as such by general or special artier of a local Government. I have the gravest doubt whether it was open to the Government to declare a post to be non-ministerial and yet continue to treat a particular incumbent as occupying a ministerial post. I have asked Mr. Burman to show me any rule which authorised Government to do so, but he could do no better than point out C. S. (C. C. A.) Rules 8-9. In my opinion, these rules promulgated in 1930 do not affect the question At all.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, for the purposes of this application I shall proceed upon the footing that the petitioner was a ministerial government servant. On or about 5-12-1951, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner by the opposite party 1, through the Director, Regional Meteorological Centre Alipore, Calcutta to show cause why he should not be removed from service upon his attaining the age of 55 years on 19-1-1952. The charge-sheet contained 5 charges. The gravamen of the charges seems to be that he was constantly preoccupied with grievances real or imaginary and his work had deteriorated and he had ceased to be efficient. It was charged that not only was he discharging his duties inefficiently but his attitude was affecting the morale and efficiency of the office in which he worked. He was asked to submit his written statement within 15 days and also to intimate whether he wished to be heard in person.

( 7 ) ON or about 10-12-1951 the petitioner wrote a letter asking about various particulars required by him to make a statement and enquiring about the constitution of the tribunal. He also intimated that he would also like to be heard in person. On 15-12-1951 he was informed that it was not proposed to set up any special tribunal as the normal procedure would be followed as required under the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution read with Rule 55 of C. S. (C. C. A.) and that the petitioner would be given normal facilities


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top