LexMOTI RAM DEKA ETC. versus GENERAL MANAGER, N.E.F. RAILWAYS, MALIGAON, PANDU, ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• -- • I 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 683 MOTI RAM DEKA ETC. l'. GENERAL MANAGER, N.E.F. RAILWAYS, MALIGAON, PANDU, ETC. (With connected appeals) (P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HJDAYATULLAH K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) Civil Service-Termination of services of a permanent servant- Validity of Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Railway Establishment Code vis-a-vis Art. 311(2)-If Rules violate Art. 14-Scope of exer- cise of Pleasure of President-Basis of superannuation-Rule com- pulsory retirement when can be applied-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14, 310, 311(2}--Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, Rules 148(3), 149(3). Moti Ram Deka was a peon employed by the North East Fron- tier Railway and Sudhir Kumar Das was a confirmed clerk. The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, terminated their services under R. 148(3) oflndian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I. They challenged the termination of their services but their writ petitions were rejected by the Assam High Court and they came to this court by special leave. Priya Gupta was an Assistant Electrical Foreman in the North Eastern Railway. His services were terminated under R. 148. His writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal challenging termination of his services having been rejected by Allahabad High Court, he came to this Court by special leave . Tirath Ram Lakhanpal was a Guard employed by the Northern Railway. His services were terminated under R. 148. His writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by Punjab High Court and he came to this court by special leave. S.B. Tewari, Parimal Gupta and Prem Chand Thakur were employed in the North Eastern Frontier Railway. Their services were terminated under R. 149. Their writ petitions challenging termination of their services were accepted by the Assam High Court and Union of India came to this Court after getting a certi- ficate of fitness from the Assam High Court. The only question involved was the constitutional validity or otherwise of Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code on the ground that they violated Arts. 14 and 311(2) of Constitution of India. Held: By majority by Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Hidaya- tullah, Ayyangar, Subba Rao and Das Gupta JJ.(Shah J. dissenting) 1963 December 5 1963 Moti Ram Deka 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] that Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of Indian Railway Establishment Code were invalid. Per Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Hidayatullah and Ayyangar, etc. JJ. v. Rules 148(3) and 149(3) are invalid inasmuch as they ate General inconsistent with the provisions of Arts. 311(2). The termination Manager, N.E.F. of the services of a permanent servant which is authorised by those Railways, rules, is no more and no less than his removal from service and Ma/igaon, hence Art. 311(2) must come into play in respect of such cases. Pandu, etc. The rule which does not require compliance with the procedure prescribed under Art. 311(2) must be struck down as invalid. A person who substantively holds a permanent post has a right to continue in service, subject to the rules of superannuation and compulsory retirement. If for any other reason that right is invaded and he is asked to leave his service, the termination of his service must inevitably mean the defeat of·his right to continue in service and as such it is in the nature of a penalty and amounts to removal. In other words, termination of the services of a permanent servant otherwise than on ground of superannuation or compulsory retirement, must per se amount to his removal and if by R. 148(3) or R. 149(3), such a termination is brought about, the rule clearly contravenes Art. 311(2) and must be held to be invalid.' Rules 148(3) and 149(3) contravene Art. 14 of the Constitu- tion. It is difficult to understand on what ground employment by the Railways alone can be said to constitute a class by itself for the purposes of framing the impugned rules. If considerations of administrative efficiency or exigencies of service justify the making of such a rule, such rules should have been framed in other depart- ments also. The pleasure of the President has lost some of its majesty and power as it is controlled by the provisions of Art. 311. Rules of superannuation are based on considerations of life expectation, mental capacity of civil servants having regard to climat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.