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

1997 Supreme(Raj) 1351

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

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vijay Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2:Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. B.R.Mehta, Advocate.

An order of compulsory retirement that is mala fide, arbitrary, perverse, or stigmatic in nature is an order of punishment that attracts the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

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.

JUDGMENT

1. - This writ application is directed against an order of compulsory retirement dated June 15, 1990 as passed by the General Manager, Sirohi District Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') pursuant to a decision dated June 9, 1990 were sought to be challenged before us holding inter alia that instead of resorting to a proper disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, the respondents passed an order of compulsory retirement against the writ petitioner in a mala fide manner and for a collateral purpose.

2. Even though the petitioner was earlier appointed on the post of Godown Keeper in the year 1974 he was promoted to the post of Branch Manager in May, 1981 to which post he was serving on the date of his purported compulsory retirement. It is contended by the writ petitioner that he completed 50 years of age on September 16, 1988 and there was no adverse entry in his service record. It was the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies purportedly acting under Rule 41 of the Cooperative Societies Rules who insisted upon the adoption by the Cooperative Societies of a Disciplinary Action and Appeal Rules. The respondent No. 3 Sirohi District Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. adopted the same from July 1, 1987 by resolution dated September 9, 1987. It is these rules which serve the purpose of Service Rules of the Employees in respect of the said Cooperative Bank. Rule 20 makes provision for retiring the employees on attainment of 50 years of age. This rule reads as follows:-

"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."

3. The Chief Executive has been defined in rule 2(k) as under:-

"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."

4. The Boards of Directors has been mentioned as the appellate authority for any decision taken by the Chief Executive Officer in an appropriate disciplinary proceedings.

5. The respondent No. 2, the Registrar of Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, also by an order dated July 17, 1989 purportedly exercising his powers conferred under Rule 41 of the Rules laid down that in case an employee who is found to be lazy or inefficient or against whom serious charges exist or against whom adverse remarks exist in the CRs can be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 50 years. It has further been laid down























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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