GURDEV SINGH SIDHU versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 01-04-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
587 
GURDEV SINGH SIDHU 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. 
H!DAYATULLAH 
AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.] 
Public 
Servant-CompulsMy 
retirement-Constitutional 
validity-If and when dismis•al. or removal from service-
Pepsu Services Regulations V oLume 1, as amended bu notifi-
cation fasued by G<ivernor under Art. 309 of the Constitution-
Constitution of India, Art. 311(2). 
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant SUiperintendent 
of Police in 1942 in the former Patiala State. In 1948 on the 
formation of Patiala and East Punjab States he was integrated 
in Pepsu Police Service. 
He was promoted to officiate as 
Superintendent of Police in 1950 by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu, 
On March 2&, 1963, respondent No. 2, the Inspector-General of 
Police a.'ld Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab, 
issued a notice upon the petitioner under the second proviso to 
Art. 9.1 of the Pepsu Services Regulation as amended by the 
Governor by his noiifrcatlon dated January 19, 1960, to show 
cause why he should not be compulsorily retired. The peti-
tioner moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for 
quas.lii!ng the said notice on the ground that the said proviso 
was ultra vires and inoperative by reason of contravention of 
Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and relied on the decision of 
thie Court in Moti Rn.m Deka v. General Manager, North East 
FrOTlltier Railway, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 600. The said proviso was a,; 
follows,-
" • • • that Government retains an absolute right to retire 
any Government servant after he has 
completed ten years 
qualifying service without giving any reason and to claim to 
special compensation on this account will be entertained. 
This right will not be exercised except when it is in public 
interest to dispense with the further services of a Government 
servant such as on accOU1I1t of inefficiency, dishonesty, COITUP-
tion or infamous conduct * * *". 
· 
Held: Artide 9.1 of the Pepsu Services Regulation in pres-
cribing a minimum period of ten years of service for the pur-
pose of compulsory retirement contravened Art. 311 (2) of the 
Constitution and must be struck down. 
The only two valid exceptions to the protection afforded 
by Art. 311 (2) -re,-
(1) where a permanent public servant was asked to retire 
on the ground that he had reached the age of superannuation 
which was reasonably fixed; 
(21) that he was compulsorily retired under the Rules 
which prescribed the n.ormal age of superannuation and pro-
vided a reasonably long period of qualified service after which 
almo,:; compulsory retirement could be valid, 
The first would not amount to dismissal or removal from 
service within the meaning of Art. 311(2) and the second would 
be justified l:y the view taken by this Court in a Joni series 
of decisions. 
'\ 
196l 
April 1 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
19U 
It is not permissible for a State while reserving to itself 
.-.-
. 
the power of compulsory retirement by framing a rule pres-
Gurdev 8171gh Sidhu cribing a proper age 
of superannuation to frame 
another 
Stat. o/'Pm•jab giving it the power to compulsorily retire a permanent public 
and A...U... 
servant at the end of ten years of his service, for that rule 
cannot fall outside Art. 311 (2) of the Conatitution. 
Moti Ram .Deka etc. v. General. Manager, 
North 
East 
Frontier Railway etc. A.I..R. 1964 S.C. 600, applied Shyam Lal v. 
· State of U.P. and Union of India, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26 and State of 
Bombay v. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi, [1958] S.C.R. 571, referred 
to. 
This decision should not be taken to mean that a petition 
like the present one was competent under Art. 32 of the Con-
stitution. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 200 of 1963. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of the fundamental rights. 
K. P. Bhandari and R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the peti-
tioner. 
S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General, Gopa/ Singh 
and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents. 
April 1, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OajetUlmgo,Jkar, O.J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J .-This petition which has been 
filed by the petitioner S. Gurdev Singh Sidhu under Art 32 
of the Constitution, challenges the validity of article 9(1) of 
the Pepsu Services Regulations, Volume I, as amended by 
the Governor of Punjab by the notification issued by him 
on the 19th January, 1960 in exercise of the powers conferred 
on him
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.