ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. versus ALLAHABAD BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 01-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
v. 
ALLAHABAD BANK AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 1996 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Allahabad Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979: Regulation 19. 
C Compulsory retirement-Order of-Stigmatic or not-Test to deter-
mine-Bank Office,.._Service record of-Considered by Special Committee 
constituted under Regulation 19-Special Committee found him not depend-
able-Chairman and Managing Director agreed with such opinion and passed 
order of his compulsory retiremenl-ffeld: Compulsory retirement-Whether 
stigmatic or not-ls how a reasonable person would read or understand 
D it-Different from dismissal and removal-Did not prima facie or per se 
constitute punishment and attract Anicle 311-ln the circumstances of the 
case, order neither stigmatic nor punitive-Constitution of India, 1950, Alt. 
311(2)-Allahabad Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) 
Regulations, 1976. 
E 
Words and Phrases : "Stigma''-Meaning and applicability of 
A Special Committee was constituted under Regulation 19 or the 
Allahabad Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 to review the cases 
or 20 Officers, including Appellant No. 2, for recommending whether they 
F 
should be retired earlier or allowed to serve till the age or superannuation. 
G 
The Committee unanimously recommended compulsory retirement of Ap-
pellant No. 2 and the Chairman and Managing Director or the Bank 
agreeing with the said recommendation passed an order for compulsorily 
retiring Appellant No. 2. 
The appellants challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ peti· 
tion in the High Court. It was challenged mainly on the ground that it cast 
a stigma on the character and dignity or Appellant No. 2 and, therefore, 
in reality it is an order of punishment which could only have been passed 
under the Allahabad Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) 
H Regulations, 1976 after holding a regular departmental enquiry and as no 
172 
, 
ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS ASSN: v. ALLAHABAD BANK 
173 
such enquiry was held it was illegal and void. The High Court dismissed A 
the writ petition. Aggrieved by the High Court's Judgment the appellants 
preferred the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The power to compulsorily retire ·a Government servant B 
is one of the facets of 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 efliciency 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. Generally speaking, Service 
C 
Rules provide for compulsory retirement of a Government servant on his 
completing certain number of years of service or attaining the prescribed 
age. His service record is reviewed at that stage and a decision is taken 
whether he should he compulsorily retired or continued further in service. 
There is no l'evelling of a charge or imputation requiring an explanatffin 
from the Government servant. While misconduct and inefficiency are D 
factors which enter into the account where the order is one of the dismissal 
or removal or of retirement, there is this difference that while in the case 
of retirement they merely furnish the background and the enquiry, if held 
and there is no duty to hold an' enquiry - is only for the satisfaction of the 
authorities who have to take action, in the case of dismissal or removal they 
riirm the very bas~ on· which the ·order is made. A Government servant who 
is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned 
during service. Thus, compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and 
removal as it involves no penal consequences. Therefore, compulsory retire~ 
ment is not considered prima facie and per se a punishment and does not 
attract the provisions of Article 311. (117-D-H; 178-A-B] 
Shyam/al v. State of U.P., [1955) 1 SCR 26; State of Bombay v. S.M 
Doshi, AIR (1957) SC 892 and U11io11 of India v. M.E. Reddy, [1980] 2 SCC 
15, relied on. 
E 
F 
2. If tire order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the G 
Government servant in the sense that it contains a statement ca~ting 
aspersion on his conduct or character, then the Court will treat that order 
as an order of punishment, attracting provisions of Article 311(2) of the 
Constitution. The reason is that as a charge or imputatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.