Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Yamuna Ram, son of late Raghubir Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs:-
i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the office order no. 44 dated 1.5.2014 issued from the office of the Deputy Inspector General, CISF (Respondent No.4) whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2013 has been rejected and further quashing of the office order no. 2703 dated 7.5.2013 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.5 has compulsorily retired the present petitioner with immediate effect without any reason assigning therein.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus upon the commanding respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of ASI keeping in view that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authorities without following the due procedure of law and are violative of principle of natural justice as well as the petitioner has been awarded this punishment at the verge of his retirement I.e. at the age of56 years.
iii. For issuance of an app
Premature retirement must comply with jurisdictional authority and assessment procedures as per CCS Rules; failure to follow statutory guidelines renders such actions void.
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
The court upheld the authority's power to retire a government servant in public interest after 30 years of service, affirming that procedural safeguards do not always require a show cause notice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
Point of Law : Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, con....
The decision to compulsorily retire a judicial officer should be based on the entire service records, including adverse entries, and the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. The court ....
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
