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

1961 Supreme(Cal) 135

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BANERJEE, J.

Bijoy Gopal Sue - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
Decided on : July 14, 1961

Advocates Appeared:
Asoke Chandra Sen, Bholanath Roy, D.N.Basu, N.C.Chakravarti, S.K.Roy Chaudhary,

A public authority can only exercise the powers that are expressly conferred upon it by law.

Headnote:

MUNICIPAL LAW - DISCHARGE OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS - POWER OF MUNICIPALITY - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - CONFIRMATION BY STATE GOVERNMENT - BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT, 1932, SECTIONS 351A(1), 66(2)(II) - BENGAL MUNICIPAL RULES, RULES 103, 104, 105.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a medical officer employed by the Howrah Municipality, was compulsorily retired on the grounds of physical infirmity. The order was confirmed by the State Government under section 66(2)(ii) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Municipality had no power to compulsorily retire the petitioner, as there was no such provision in the Municipal Rules. The order of compulsory retirement was therefore quashed. The court also held that the State Government had no power to confirm the order of compulsory retirement, as it could only confirm or refuse to confirm an order of dismissal. The confirmatory order was therefore also quashed.

Issues: 1. Whether the Municipality had the power to compulsorily retire the petitioner? 2. Whether the State Government had the power to confirm the order of compulsory retirement?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Municipality had no power to compulsorily retire the petitioner, as there was no such provision in the Municipal Rules. The court relied on the principle that a public authority can only exercise the powers that are expressly conferred upon it by law. 2. The court held that the State Government had no power to confirm the order of compulsory retirement, as it could only confirm or refuse to confirm an order of dismissal. The court relied on the principle that a confirming authority can only confirm or refuse to confirm an order that is within the jurisdiction of the authority that made the order.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order of compulsory retirement and the confirmatory order by the State Government.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, a medical man, was appointed, on August 1, 1949, as an Assistant Health Officer of the Howrah Municipality, in charge of conservancy work. He had also to inspect, amongst other things, vaccination work, maternity work and other works.

2. In or about May or June, 1953, the petitioner fell ill and his particular illness was a disease known as writers' cramp. Under medical advice he applied for leave for one month, commencing from July 3, 1953, which was granted. The petitioner did not get round during the period of his leave and under medical advice applied for an extension of the leave by two months. His application was again granted by the Municipality and he was allowed leave up to October 2, 1953. On October 3, 1953, the petitioner asked for permission to rejoin his duties, alleging that he was cured of his malady. He was asked by the municipality to submit himself for examination by the Civil Surgeon of Howrah. The Civil Surgeon, however, held a different opinion and did not certify that the petitioner was cured. Thereupon, the petitioner obtained another four months' leave, upto February 2, 1954, on medical grounds. After the expiry of the period of leave, the petitioner again asked for permission to rejoin Rind was again asked to submit himself for examination by the Civil Surgeon. The second health examination produced the following report from the Civil Surgeon:

"examined Dr. B. Sur today (5.2.54). The cramp of the Rt. Hand from which he is suffering exhibits very little sign of improvement, worth mentioning even after a period of rest for 4 months as deduced from the writing test. In my opinion, Dr. Sur may be allowed to resume his duties provided the nature of duties which he will have to perform allows him to do away without much writing with his right hand. "

On receipt of the report the Health Officer, respondent No. 3, wrote to the petitioner the following letter, on March 30, 1954:

"as directed by the Chairman he is hereby asked to resign from his service as it is not possible for him to carry on the responsible and onerous duties of an A. H. O. with the physical defect which has exhibited little sign of improvement even after prolonged rest, according to the Civil Surgeon. He has also been absenting himself without any authorised leave since the medical leave last granted expired on 2. 2. 54, when he was not allowed to resume his duties as he was not fit. He is therefore also asked to apply for medical leave for the period till the date of his resignation. He may also note that in default of compliance with this the matter will be placed before the Commissioners for terminating his service for absenting himself without any authorised leave and for incapacity due to physical defect. "

The petitioner, however, did not agree to what he was asked to do and insisted upon resuming his duties.

3. AT this stage the Howrah Municipality was superseded and Sri R. S. Trivedi was appointed the Administrator of the said municipality. On April 30, 1954, the said Administrator passed the following order against the petitioner :

"Dr. Sur is clearly not fit to join his post. He cannot be allowed to join. It also appears that he is unfit for further service. He must, therefore, retire from service on the expiry of his leave already granted. "

The order was forwarded to the State Government for confirmation under proviso (ii) to section 66 (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. But before the confirmation was obtained the petitioner was informed of the order by the Health Officer, respondent No. 3, under a letter dated May 3, 1954.

4. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule, being Civil Rule No. 2061 of 1954. The Rule was ultimately discharged by Sinha, J., on July 8, 1958, with the following observations :

"I fail to see how it could be possible for a doctor to continue to be employed by a public institution when he has lost the use of his right hand. For example, he is























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