ASHOK KUMAR SAHU versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 08-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ASHOK KUMAR SAHU 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Service law: 
All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958: 
Rule J6(2A) proviso (as amended)-Voluntary retirement--JPS officer 
under suspension. on completion of 20 years of service, expressed his desire 
to retire from the service from a certain date in terms of Rule 16(2A)-The 
Central Government referred the matter to the Joint Cadre Authority, which 
D agreed to accept the request of the officer to go on voluntary retirement 
without prejudice to the existing disciplinary procPedings against him-By a 
notification the officer wa:; communicated that the Governor vf the State had 
accepted his voluntary retirement- -The writ petition filed by the officer against 
the said commur.ication was dismissed~orrectness of-Held: In terms of the 
amended sub-rule (2A), an offer of retirement made by a member of the 
E Indian Police Service requires acceptance by the Central Government and not 
by the State Government-When terms and conditions of service of an officer 
are governed by the All India Services Rules, the State Government exercises 
delegated power-The action, in terms of the Rules, can be taken by the 
prescribed authority alone and not by any other authority-An. order passed 
F by an authority without jurisdiction would be non-est in the eyes of law-It 
is coram non judice-However, on facts, officer not reinstated in service but 
directions to relpase his terminal benefits issued-All India Services Act, 1951. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Approve", "approval", "acceptance''. "ratify", and "ratijication"--
G Meaning of-Explained 
H 
The appellant was a member of the Indian Police Service. On or 
about 4.6.1997, the appellant was placed under suspension. Disciplinary 
proceedings were also initiated against the appellant. On his completion 
394 
-
-
ASHOK KUMAR SAHU v. U.0.1. 
395 
of 20 years of service, the appellant expressed his desire to retire from A 
the service with effect from 1.8.1997 in terms of Rule 16(2A) of the All 
India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. The Central 
Government referred the matter to the Joint Cadre Authority, which 
agreed to accept the request of the appellant to go on voluntary retirement 
without prejudice to the existing disciplinary proceedings against the B 
appellant. By a notification dated 8.9.1997, the appellant was 
communicated that the Governor of the State had accepted his voluntary 
retirement. The writ petition filed by the appellant against the said 
communication was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In law, offer of volunt.ary retirement can be made and 
accepted in terms of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement 
Benefits) Rules, 1958, inter a/ia, in three different situations:-
(a) On completion of 20 ye>1rs of service; 
(b) When an employee is placed under suspension; and 
(c) If he has completed more than 20 years of service or 50 years of 
age. 1402-A-Bl 
c 
D 
1.2. Whereas in the first situation acceptance of the proposal is not E 
required, in the second and third, acceptance of the offer by the competent 
authority would be required. [402-CI 
2.1. An offer of retirement made by a member of the Indian Police 
Service requires acceptance by the Central Government and not by the F 
State Government. In terms of the amended sub-rule (2A) of Rule 16, the 
offer of the appellant was required to be accepted by the Government of 
India and not by the Joint Cadre Authority. The question of application 
of mind by the Joint Cadre Authority for the purpose of acceptance of 
the said offer and/or approval thereof by the Government of India does 
not arise. At the first instance it was obligatory on the part of the G 
competent authority of the Central Government to apply its own mind 
and pass an appropriate order. The competent authority could not have 
delegated its power to the Joint Cadre Authority or for that matter to the 
State Government. 1403-C-Fl 
H 
A 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2. It is not denied or disputed that the acceptance of the offer of 
the appellant by the Central Government was necessary on two counts: 
(1) The appellant was under suspension; and (2) it was imperative in terms 
of the proviso appended to sub-rule (2A) of Rule 16. 1403-FJ 
3. When terms and conditions of service of an officer are governed 
B by the 

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