Back
1996 JLJ 786
(SUPREME COURT)
S.C. Agarwal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Allahabad Bank Officers‘ Association and another v. Allahabad Bank
and others
Civil Appeal No. 5291 of 1990; against the order of the M.P. High Court
passed in M.P. No. 1741 of 1985; Decided on 1.5.1996.
The power to compulsorily retire a Government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.
By its very nature the power to compulsory retire a Government servant is distinct and separate from power to punish him by way of removal, dismissal etc. for misconduct.
Compulsory retirement differs from dismissal and removal both in its nature and incidence or effects. Therefore compulsory retirement is not considered prima facie and per se a punishment and does not attract the provisions of Art. 311. AIR 1954 SC 369, AIR 1957 SC 892 and (1980) 2 SCC 15 relied on. [Para 5
(2) Words and Phrases -- word‘ ‘stigma" -- means something that detracts from character or reputation.
Stigma, according to the dictionary meaning, is something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, a mark, sign etc. indicating that something is not considered normal or standard. It is a blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute, imputation, mark of disgrace or shame and mark or label indicating deviation from a norm. In the context of an order of termination or compulsory retirement of a Government servant stigma would mean a statement in the order indicating his misconduct or lack of integrity. [Para 7
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 -- termination on ground of loss of confidence -- attaches stigma. (1985) 2 SCC 727 relied on. [Para 8
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 -- termination on the charge of concealment of fact that employee was previously removed on charge of corruption -- casts a stigma. (1985) 2 SCC 727, (1987) 1 SCC 146 and (1986) 2 SCC 338 relied on. [Para 9
(5) Constitution of India -- ARt.311 -- termination on the ground of undesirability to be retained in service -- casts stigma. AIR 1964 SC 449 and AIR 1967 SC 1260 relied on. [Para 9
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 -- termination on the ground that employee has outlived his utility -- words are stigmatic. AIR 1967 SC 1260 relied on. [Para 11
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 -- probationer discharged from service for unsatisfactory work and conduct -- no stigma imposed -- employee not visited with civil consequences. AIR 1961 SC 177 relied on. [Para 12
(8) Constitution of India -- Art.311 -- employee reverted on ground of unsuitability -- no stigma imposed. (1969) 3 SCC 603 relied on. [Para 13
(9) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 -- employee not passing test for confirmation -- termination on ground of unfit for appointment -- no stigma comes in. (1969) 3 SCC 603 relied on. [Paras 14 & 15
(10) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 (2) -- removal of probationer on ground of unsatisfactory work and conduct -- does not amount to level stigma. AIR 1987 SC 2135 relied on. [Para 16
(11) Constitution of India -- Art.310 and 311 (2) -- Bank employee compulsorily retired on report of committee -- remarks as "want of application to Bank‘s work", "lack of potential "and found not dependable" -- no stigma attached -- remarks are in relation to work and not for any other purpose. [Para 19
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-3 rFkk 311 & vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fÙk vuq-310 esa lekfo"V çlkn ds fl)kar dk ,d igyw gS & ;g naM ugha ekuk tkrk vkSj blls vuq- 311 ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrsA
fdlh ljdkjh lsod dks vfuok;Zr% lsokfuo`r djus dh ‘kfDr Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuq-310 esa lekfo"V çlkn ds fl)kar dk ,d igyw gSA vfuok;Z lsokfuo`Ùk dk mís"; lsok esa n{krk vkSj igy ‘kfDr dk;e j[kus ds fy, fu#i;ksxh rRo Nk¡V dj fudkyus vkSj ç‘kklu esa ‘kq)rk ds ifjj{k.k ds fy, mudh lsok ls NqVdkjk ikuk Hkh gS ftudh lR;fu"Bk lansgkLin gSA
ljdkjh lsod dks vfuok;Zr% lsokfuo`Ùk djus dh ‘kfDr] vius Lo:i ls gh] vopkj ds fy, mls gVk, tkus] inP;qr fd, tkus vkfn ls lqfHkUu vkSj i`Fkd gSA
vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk] vius Lo:i esa] inP;qfr vkSj gVk, tkuk] nksuksa ls fHkUu gSA blfy,] vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk çFken`"V;k vkSj Lor% naM ugha ekuh tkrh vkSj vuq- 311 ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrsA , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 369] , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 892 rFkk ¼1980½ 2 ,l lh lh 15 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 15
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; & ‘‘kCn ^^dyad** & vFkZ gS ,slk dqN ftlls pfj= vFkok [;kfr dk vid"kZ.k gksrk gSA
‘‘kCndks"kh; vFkZ ds vuqlkj dyad ,slk dqN gS ftlls fdlh O;fDr ds pfj= vFkok [;kfr dk vid"kZ.k gksrk gS( dksbZ fpag] ladsr vkfn ftlls dqN lkekU; vFkok ekud minf‘kZr ugha gksrkA ;g dyq"k] =qfV] vi;‘k] cnukeh] ykaNu] dyad ;k yTtk dk fpag rFkk lfUu;e ls fopyu minf‘kZr djus okyk fpag ;k yscy gSA fdlh ljdkjh lsod dh lsoklekfIr vFkok vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk ds vkns‘k esa lanHkZ esa dyad dk vFkZ ml vkns‘k esa mlds vopkj vFkok lR;fu"Bk esa U;wurk dk dFku gksxkA ¿iSjk 7
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-311 & fo‘okl gkfu ds vk/kkj ij lsok lekfIr & dyad lyaXu gksrk gSA ¼1985½ 2 ,l lh lh 727 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 8
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 311 & deZpkjh iwoZ esa Hkz"Vkpkj ds vkjksi ij gVk;k x;k Fkk] bl rF; ds Nqik, tkus ds vkjksi ij lsok lekfIr & dyad tqM+rk gSA ¼1985½ 2 ,l lh lh 727] ¼1987½ 1 ,l lh lh 146 rFkk ¼1986½ 2 ,l lh lh 338 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 9
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 311 & lsok esa j[ks tkus dh vokaNuh;rk ds vk/kkj ij lsoklekfIr dyad tqM+rk gSA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 449 rFkk , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1260 voyafcrA
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-311 & bl vk/kkj ij lsokfuo`fÙk dh deZpkjh dh mi;ksfxrk lekIr gks xbZ gSa & ‘‘kCn dyad yxkus okys gSA , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1260 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 11
¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-311 & ifjoh{kk/khu dks vlarks"ktud dk;Z rFkk vkpj.k ds fy, lsoksUeqDr fd;k x;k & dksbZ dyad vf/kjksfir ugha & deZpkjh ij flfoy ifj.kke ugha gksrkA , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 177 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 12
¼8½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-311 & deZpkjh vuqi;qDrrk ds vk/kkj ij inkour & dyad vf/kjksfir ugha gksrkA ¼1969½ 3 ,l lh lh 603 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 13
¼9½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-311 & deZpkjh iqf"V ds fy, ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ ugha & fu;qfDr ds fy, v;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij lsoklekfIr & dyad ugha yxrkA ¼1969½ 3 ,l lh lh 603 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 14 rFkk 15
¼10½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-311 ¼2½ & vlarks"ktud dk;Z rFkk vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij ifjoh{kk/khu dk gVk;k tkuk & dyad yxk, tkus dh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2135 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 16
¼11½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-310 rFkk 311¼2½ &cSad deZpkjh dh] lfefr dh fjiksVZ ij vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fÙk & ^^cSad ds dk;Z ls yxko dk vHkko]** ^^laHkkO;rk dh deh** rFkk ^^fuHkZj.kh; ugha ik;k x;k** tSlh fVIif.k;k¡ & dksbZ dyad layXu ugha & fVIi.kh;k¡ dk;Z ds laca/k esa gS] fdlh vU; ç;kstu ds fy, ughaA ¿iSjk 19
G.T. Nanavati, J. -- 1. Appellant 2, Dayal Dass Khanna, joined the Allahabad Bank (Respondent 1) as a Clerk on 24.7.1946. He was promoted as an Officer on 15.9.1967 and his further promotions from Scale I to Scale II and from Scale II to Scale III in the Officer's Cadre were on 1.7.1976 and 1.10.1977 respectively. On- 15.8.1979 he was elected as a General Secretary of the Allahabad Bank Officers) Association (Appellant 1), a registered trade union duly recognised by the Bank. In November 1982 he was considered for further promotion from Scale III to Scale IV but was denied promotion because he was found lacking in potential. In March 1984 a Special Committee was constitued under Regulation 19 of the Allahabad Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 to review the cases of 20 Officers, including Appellant 2, for recommending whether they should be retired earlier or allowed to serve till the age of superannuation. The committee unanimously recommended compulsory retirement of Appellant 2 and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank agreeing with; the Said' recommendation passed an order on 18.5.1984 for compulsorily retiring Appellant 2. By an order of the same date passed by the Bank Appellant. 2 was retired with effect from 24.5.1984.
2. The appellants-challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was challenged mainly on the ground that it casts a stigma on the character and dignity of Appellant 2 and, therefore, in reality it is an order of punishment which could have been passed under Allahabad Bank Officers Employees. (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 after holding a regular departmental enquiry and as no such enquiry was held it is illegal and void. The order was also challenged on the ground that it was arbitrary and mala fide. The High Court rejected all the contentions and dismissed the writ petition.
3. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court and the reasons given in support thereof the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly not passed the other contentions which were raised before the High Court and, therefore, the only question which we have to consider in this appeal' is whether the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on Appellant 2. The learned counsel submitted that the High Court has committed an error in holding that it does not. It is not in dispute that the letter dated 18.5.1984 is the only order of compulsory retirement served upon Appellant 2. The material part of it reads as under:
"In terms of the first proviso of Regulation 19.1 of Allahabad Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979 followed by the guidelines of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, on the said Regulation, a Special Committee in terms of Rule. 2 of the aforesaid Regulation was constituted for the review of your case for your retirement from the Bank's service or otherwise. The Special Committee unanimously recommended for your retirement from Bank's service. Accordingly, the Chairman and Managing Director, who is the competent authority in this respect has passed the following order :-
I agree particularly, on the views expressed regarding his want of application to Bank's work and lack of potential. He has a1&o been found not dependable. Hence retire him immediately as recommended.
The Bank, therefore, retires you from its service with effect from 24.5.1984. Please hand over charge to Shri C.L. Malhotra as at the close of business on 23.5.1984 on which date you stand relieved from Bank's service."
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel that recitals in the impugned order that there was "want of application to Bank's work and lack of potential and he has also been found not dependable" are stigmatic as they cast aspersions-on the conduct, character and integrity of Appellant 2. The High Court rejected this contention by observing that:
According to us, this casts no stigma, but only assesses the work of Petitioner 2 f
SupremeToday
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
