MURARI MOHAN DEB versus THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 10-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MURARI MOHAN DEB 
v. 
THE SECRETARY TO THE 
GOVT. OF ·INDIA & ORS. 
April 10, f985 
(D.A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ .] 
639 
Constitution of India, Art. 31 !(2)-Compu/1ory retirement and dismissal/ 
removal from service-Distinction between-Whether compulsory retirement 
amounts to dismissal or removal-Circumstances when it amounts to dismissal or 
removal exPlalned. 
A 
B 
c 
Civil Service-Compulsory retirement-No pro11islon in the Rules finding 
D 
the age of compulsory retirement-Compulsory retirement not in p11blic interest-
Whether amounts to dismissal under Art. 311(2), 
The appellant-a Forester was compulsorily retired from service by 
an Order dated October 12, 1962 passed by the Chief Forest Officer, 
Government of Tripura. He filed a Writ petition before the Judicial Commis· 
sioner implcadiag, (1) The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of 
Home Affairs ; (2) The Chief Commissioner, Tripura ; (3) The Secretary to 
the Government of Tripura, Forest Department ; and (4) The Chief Forest 
Officer, Government of Tripu~a as respondents. His main grievance was (i) 
that the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him without 
affording him an adequate opportunity of being heard ; and (ii) that the 
enquiry held against him was in violation or the principles of natural justice. 
On the other hand, the respondent contended (i) that the punishment or com-
pulsory retirement doos not tantamount to dismissal or removal from service 
as contemplated by Art. 311 (1) and therefore, no formal enquiry was Dece!sary 
to be held before imposing the penalty ; and (ii) that adequate opportunity was 
afforded to 'he appellant during the enquiry to controvert the charges and 
defend himself. The Judicial Commissioner held that the appellant wa1 appointed 
by the Chief Commissioner, and therefore, the Chief Forest Officer, a subordi-
nate of the Chief Commissoner was not competent to impose the pcna1ty of 
compulsory retirement and t bus the order was bad on merits. But, he dismissed 
the petition holding that it was not properly constituted, 
Allowing the appea1 by the appeUant, 
HELD ; (I) The Judicial Commissioner should not have taken upon 
F 
G 
R 
\ 
A 
D 
E 
640 
'1 •' 
SUPREMll COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 3 S.C,R, 
himself to raise the objection that in the abseace or Union of India being made 
a party, th~ petition was not properly constituted_ when the respondents did not 
raise such a coniention. · Respondent No. l is shown to be the Seci:-etary to the 
Go,;ernment of India, Ministry of Home AffairS. If there was technical er or 
in the draftsmanship of the petition by a lawyi:r, a Forester a class IV Jaw 
grade servant should not have beeO made to suffer. An oral request to correct 
the descriPtion of 1 the first respondent would have ·satisfied tbe procedural 
requirement. The Court could have conveniently read the cause title as 
Government of India which means Union of Iadia through the Secretary. 
Ministry of Hom~ Affairs instead of tb'e d.!scription set out in th.e writ petition 
and this very petition would be competefit by any standard. Moreover, the -
appointing authority of the appellant, the Chief Commissioner of the Govern .. 
ment of Tripura as well the Chief Forest Officer who p1ssed the impugned 
order were impleaded and they represented the administration of Tripura 
Government as wen as the concerned. officers. Therefore, not on1y the petition 
as drawn up was competent but no bone of contention could be taken about 
its ineompetcnce. [644G·H; 645A·Dl 
.. 
';'·· 
(2) The Judicial Commissioner rightly held that the impugned order of 
compulsory retirement Was imposed by an authority not competent to impose . 
the same and therefore it is ab inilio illegal and invalid. [645F] 
(3) · (i) Where relevant service rules provide for an age of superannuation 
and permit compulsory retirement in public interest on reaching a certain age 
lower than the 3.ge of superannuation, and order of com,Julsory retirement 
according to relevant service rule~ cann Jt b! styled as imposing a pena1ity and 
obviously Art. 311 (2) will not be attracte1; A'l order of compulsory retire· 
·ment differs both from an order of di-.m'.~~al anj an order of removal _from~ 
service, in that it is not a form of pu 1i'ihrn';!nt prescribed by , the rules; and 
involyed no; penal consequences iaac;inuch as the person who retires is entitled 
to pension proportionate to the period or service standing to his 

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