LexMAYENGHOAN RAHAMOHAN SINGH versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER (ADMN.) MANIPUR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
c D E F G H 1022 MAYENGHOAN RAHAMOHAN SINGH • v. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER (ADMN.) MANIPUR AND OTHERS Noveniber 1, i976 [A. N. RAY, C. J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Conzpulsory retirement-Compulsory retirement made in public interest .under the Government of India Decision No. 23i dated .30th Nov1:1nher, .1~62 below Fundamental Rule 56 (later substituted as a 11ew rule fR 56(j) )--.~ere .reference to a non-subsisting rule does not invalidate the order wlien the retire- ment is in public interest and boni fide. • The appellant, a Sub-ordinate Judge was compulsorily re.tired under the Government of India Decision No. 23 below Fundamental Rule No. 56 though the said rule was later substituted as FR 56(j). A writ petition assailing the order of compulsory retirement as in violation of Article 311 was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner for ~lanipur. On appeal by certificate the appellant contended that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was nu11 and void ab initio because: (1) Fundamental Rule 56 at the material time contained rio reservation of any power in the appointing authority to retire him without any reason on three month's notice after the age of 55 years: (2) the impugnca order \\'as made expressly. under a non.subsisting: authority viz., Gov~rnment of India Decision Nq. 23 below Fundamental Rule 56, at the time of impugned notice and ( 3) the Government of Ind'a ·Decision not having been incorporated. in Fundamental Rule 56~ it amounted to a mere executive instruction and not a rule within the meaning of Article 309. Di'>missing the appeal, the Court HELD : ( 1) Compulsory retirement is not a punishment, there hcing no stigma in it. [1024 D] Tara Singh etc. etc. v. Stilte of Rajastl1an and Ors. [1975] (3) SCR 1002 reiterated. (2) If pOYiCf can be traced to a -valid power the fact that the po-...,.cr is purPorted to have been exercised under non--existing power does not invalidate the exercise of the power. In the present case, the affidavit evidence establishes · that the Con1n1issioner ~xercised his powers and was of the opinion that it Vi'as ·in public interest to make the order of compulsory retirement. [1024 E·1025 A] L. llazari Mal KutliiaIJ.. v. Income-tax Office», special circle Ambala Cantt. and Anr. [1961] 1 SCR 892=41 1.T.R. 12 and Hukumc11and Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Bharat/• and Anr. (1964] 6 S.C.R. 857.=52 I.T.R .. 583 followed. (3) Thi! absence of recital in the order of compulsory retirement that it \\·as made .. in public interest"· is not fatal as long as power to make compulsory retirement in public interest is there and the power, in fact, is shown in the facts and cirCumstanCes oe the case, to have been exercised in public interest. \Vhether the order is correct or not is not to be gone into by the Court. In the instant case, the Government affidavit is that the Chief Commissioner made the order because he was of the opinion that it was in public interest to do so. The order is made bona fide and nothing is on the record to show tha·t the affidavit is unbe\ievable. [1025 A·B, E-G] Union of India v. 1. N. Sinha (1971] 1 SCR 791 ;pplied. Butail v. Unioti of India & Ors. [1971] 2 SCR 55 referred to. M. R. SINGH V. CHIEF COMM. (Ray, C. J.) 1023 ClvIL ~PPELLATE JURISDI~TION : Civi~ Appeal No. 2022 of 1969. A Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.1968 of the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur in Civil Appln. Case No. 23 /67) R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal & V. !. Francis, for the Appellant. V. C. Mahajan & R. N. Sachthey, for Respondent Nos. 1-3 B Th~ Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,J\AY,C.J.-This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 26 October 1968 of the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur. Th9 appellant by a writ petition challenged the order of respondent No. 1 by which the appellant was compulsorily retired. C The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant was born on 1 January 1911. He joined the erstwhile State of Manipur as a jw1ior clerk in 1935. Though he was not a Law Graduate, he rose to become a permanent Puisne Judge D in Manipur State Chief Court with ejl'ect from 5 October 1949. After the Government of India took over the administration of Manipur the appellant was appointed as a Subordinate Judge with effect from 25 January 1950 on a temporary basis. On the enactment of Manipur Courts Act 1955 the Court of Subor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.