M. RAMANATHA PILLAI versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 27-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
M. RAMANA IBA PILLAI
'"
THE STAIE OF KERALA & ANR.
(With colllleCted appeals)
August 27, 1973
sis
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG, S. N. Dw1VEDI ANn
y. v. CllANJ>Iw::HuD, 11.]
Con.rtitMtion of India, 1950, Arts. 510 and 311-Abolltlon of post-Effect of.
On the questions, (i) whether the Government could abolish a post in the
service, and (ii) what is the effect of such abolition on the righto of the holder of
the post at the time of abolition.
HEID: (I) Every sovereign government has a right to abolish a post in
government service in the interest and necessity of internal administration.
The
creation and abolition of a post is dictated by policy, exigencies and administra-
tive necessity in the interest of general public, and the power is not related to
the doctrine of pleasure. (5200-EJ
(2) The frotection afforded by Art. 3 JI of the Constitution is limitell to the
imposition o the three major penalties. namely, dismissal, removal and reduc·
tion -in rank.
These words are technical words.
Every termination of ecrvice
cannot amount to dismissal _ or removal. It is oQly in cases where there is a
otigma or a loss of benefit that the removal or diSmissal would come under the
Article. The expression "rank" in the Article has reference to a person's class1~
fication and not to hi!t MJ'ticular place in the same cadre in the hierarchv of the
acrvice to which be belongs. A reduction in rank would be a punishment if it
coined penal consequence1. with it. f521G-522B]
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of lndid, [1958) S.C.R. 828; SatiJh Chandra
Anand v. The Union of India [1953] S.C.R. 655 and Shyam Lai v. State of U.P.
and the Union of India, (1955) I S.C.R. 26, referred to.
(3) Whei'e a person has a substantive appointment to a permanent post he-
haa a right to hold the post until, under the tuJ.es, he attains the age of superan~
nuation or is compulsorily retired after having put in the prescribed number of
years' service or the post is abolished; and his service cannot be terminated exce,Pt
by way of punishment for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or any other dts-
qualification found against him on enquiry after due notice to him. An appoint-
ment to a temporary post for a certain specified period gives the servant a ri.e;ht
to hold the post for the entire period of his tenure, and his tenure cannot be put
~ end to during that period unless he is. by way of punishment, dismissed or
removed from the aervice. [522E-01
Parshotam Lal DhinRra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828 and Moti Ram
Dtka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways, MtJligaon, Pandu, ttc. f1964l 5
S.C.R. 683, referred to.
·
·
(4) But.a iiost may be abolished in good faith. The abolition ot the post
may have the consequence of termination of service of a government servant.
Such termination however is not dismissal or removal. within the meaning of Art.
311 of the Constitution. The opportunity of showing cause against the proposed
penalty of dismissal or removal does not therefore arise in the case of the aboli-
tion .of a posL The abolition is not a personal penalty against the government
oervanL It is an executive 1><>licy decision. Whether after abolition of the post
the l!Qvemment servant, who was holding the post would or could be offered any
employment under the State would therefore ho a matter of policy decision of
the Government. beeause. the abolition of a Post does not confer on the pel!Or>
holding the abolished post any light to hold the post. The order abolishing the
.,...i mav. b"'!""ver lose ii. effective eharacter if it is established to have been
made arbttrarily, mala fide or as a mask of some penal action within the meaning
of Article 311(2). [S22H; 5260-F]
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.C.R.
(S) The observations in Motl Ram Deka case ([D64] S S.C.R. 683), that a
person who substantively holds a permanent post has a right to continue. in ser-
vice, subject to the rules of superannuation and COIDtJUlsory retirement and that
'if for any other ·reasbn tha:t tight is iPvaded aiid he is ·asked to leave his service,
the ,efminarior. of his setvke. must inevitably mean t:1e defeat of his right
to continue in service and as such, it "is in t~e nature of a penalty and amounts
to removal' are not authority fOi the proposition that aboliti .. 11 of a post in good
A
faitb amounts to removal, The ~a.rli.er observatlon in the judgment that a pcrma

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