DALIP SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 28-07-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

88 
SUPREM,E COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
this view, because in our judgment, the contention of 
The State of 
the a.ssessee that for setting a.side an adverse order 
Ulla• P•adesh inconsistent with the provi8ions of the amending Act 
6- Othm 
of 1956, a. proceeding for review under s. II isthe only 
v. 
remedy which is open to an aggrieved party, is with-
;·~· Sye~ 
out force. 
A court of appeal, in an appeal properly 
Saad•~ ·;~·Khan before it, must give effect to the law a.sit stands if 
Shah ]. 
1960 
July a8. · 
the law ha.a at some stage anterior to the hearing of 
the appeal been a.mended retrospectivelJ;. with the 
object of conferring upon the authority or tribunal of 
first instance from the order whereof the appeal is 
filed jurisdiction which it originally la.eked : and a. 
provision for review like the one contained in s. 11 of 
the a.mending Act does not affect the power of the 
appellate court to deal with the appeal iu the light of 
the a.mended law. 
In the view expreBSed by us, this appeal must be 
allowed. 
As the appellant succeeds relying on a. 
statute which was enacted after the date of the judg-
ment of the High Court, we direct that there shall be 
no order as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
DALIP SlNGH 
"· 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB. 
(P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA 
and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
( 
\ .
I 
I 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
89 
service Sardar Dalip Singh, Inspector General of Police, Pepsu 
(on leave) for administrative reasons with effect from the 18th 
August, 1950." 
No charges were framed against him and it was on his insist-
ence that certain charges were communicated to him. Rule 278 
of the Patiala State Regulations, 193r, which was then in force, 
provided as follows:-
" 278. For all classes of pensions of person who desires 
to obtain the pension is required to submit his application before 
any pension is granted to him. 
The State reserves to itself the right to retire any of its 
employees on pension on political or on other reasons." 
The question for determination in the appeal was whether the 
compulsory retirement of the appellant amounted to removal or 
dismissal from service within the meaning of Art. 3r r(2) of the 
Constitution. The trial Court held in favour of the appellant 
and the High Court ag~inst him, 
, 
Held, that the two tests laid down by this Court for deter-
mining whether an order of compulsory retirement amounted to 
removal or dismissal from service were (r) whether it was by 
way of punishment, a charge or imputation against the officer, 
being made the basis of the exercise of the power, and (2) whe-
ther the officer was deprived of any benefit already earned as 
in a case of dismissal or removal. 
Shyamlal v. State of U. P., [1955] l S.C.R. 26 and State of 
Bombay v. Subhagchand Doshi, [1958] S.C.R. 571, referred to. 
So judged, the order passed against the appellant could not 
amount to dismissal or removal from service \Vi thin the meaning 
of Art. 3rr(2) of the Constitution. 
The order was not one purported to have been made on 
any charge of misconduct or inefficieny and the fact that any 
such considerations might have weigh:ed with the Government 
in passing the order under Rule 278 did not amount to any 
imputation or charge against the officer, and there could be no 
question of losing any benefit earned since the Rule itself pro-
vided for retirement on pension and the officer had in fact been 
allowed full pension. 
It would not be correct to say that since the Rule did not fix 
any age for compulsory retirement, an order of compulsory 
retirement passed under it must necessarily be regarded as dis-
missal or removal within the meaning of Art. 3rr(2) of the 
Constitution. 
State of Bombay v. Subhagchand Doshi, [1958] S.C.R. 571, ex-
plained. 
C1v1L 
APPELtATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 235 of 1958. 
Ig6o 
Dalip Singh 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab 
Dalip Singh 
'" 
Tiu State ~f 
l'unjab 
90 
SUPRElllE COURT REPORTS 
[ 1961] 
Appeal from tho judgment and decree dated Octo-
ber 18, 1956, of the former PEPSU High Court in 
Reguhtr First Appeal Ko. 11 of 1954, arising out of 
the judgment aud decree dated Kovember 21, 1953, 
of the Additioual District ,Judge, Patiala. 
Gopal Singh and K. R. Krishnaswamy, for the 
appellant. 
N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 
1960. July 28. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Das Gupta J. 
DAS GUPTA J.-The appellant Dalip Singh l'lltered 
the service of the 

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