RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR BENCH
M.G.Mukherji, J.C.Verma, JJ.
Kanhaiya Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2506 of 1990.
Decided On : 9-09-1997
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES - DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND APPEAL RULES - ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - MALA FIDE - ARBITRARINESS - PERVERSITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - STIGMA - PUNISHMENT - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - FAIR PLAY - AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager in a Cooperative Bank, was compulsorily retired at the age of 50 years under Rule 20 of the Disciplinary Action and Appeal Rules adopted by the Bank. The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement on the grounds that it was mala fide, arbitrary, and perverse, and that it violated the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide, arbitrary, and perverse, and that it violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Court found that the Bank had not followed the proper procedure for disciplinary action, and that the order of compulsory retirement was based on three specific charges against the petitioner that had not been properly investigated. The Court also found that the order of compulsory retirement was stigmatic in nature, and that it was therefore an order of punishment that attracted the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide, arbitrary, and perverse? 2. Whether the order of compulsory retirement violated the principles of natural justice and fair play? 3. Whether the order of compulsory retirement was stigmatic in nature? 4. Whether the order of compulsory retirement attracted the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide, arbitrary, and perverse because it was based on three specific charges against the petitioner that had not been properly investigated, and because the Bank had not followed the proper procedure for disciplinary action. 2. The Court held that the order of compulsory retirement violated the principles of natural justice and fair play because the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed. 3. The Court held that the order of compulsory retirement was stigmatic in nature because it cast a stigma on the petitioner's character and reputation. 4. The Court held that the order of compulsory retirement attracted the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution because it was an order of punishment that was stigmatic in nature.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of compulsory retirement and directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and benefits.
"The Chief Executive Officer may, after giving three months' previous notice in writing or by payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice, require an employee to retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of service or on date on which he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier or any other date thereafter, subject to prior written approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur."
"Chief Executive means the Managing Director or General Manager or Manager or Secretary or such other officer to whom the administration of the institution is entrusted according to the bye-laws of the institution."
It has been submitted that the General Manager of the respondent No. 3 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank and has been empowered to pass orders under rule 20. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Action and Appeal Rules also, which is an integral part of the Service Rules, mentions careless, laziness etc. as minor mis-conduct, while giving false information has been described as major misconduct. Compulsory retirement has been mentioned as one of the punishments pursuant to an employee found guilty in disciplinary proceedings following a proper charge-sheet, enquiry and a personal hearing. Under Rule 6 of the Disciplinary Rules there is a provision for compulsory retirement which gives out inter alia that:-
"Service record of all the employees who have completed 25 years of service or attained 50 years of age will be examined every year and in case of poor performance, they may be retired from service after giving them the required notice pay. The record of service will be examined by the Committee or by the Board of Directors/Registrar, Cooperative Societies as the case may be."
Chandulal v. Management of M/s Pan American World Airways AIR 1985 SC 1128
Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of M/s Pan American World Airways AIR 1987 SC 229
Jagdish Prasad v. Sachiv, Zila Ganna Committee
Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 449
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.