LexN. V. PUTTABHATTA versus THE STATE OF MYSORE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
304 N.V.PUTIABHATIA v. THE STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. April 20, 1972 [A. N. GROVER AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J Mysore State Civil Service Rules, r. 285 and Note I and Mysore Civil Services (Confidential Reports) Rules, 1965, r. 3--Compu/sory retire· n1ent based on confidential reports-If could b~ challenged. The appellant was an officer in the Mysore State Serv:ce. In 1967, when he had passed the age of 50 years he was compulsorily re\ired in terms nf r. 285 of the Mysore Civil Service Rules read with Note I there- to, as the Government was of opinion that it was necessary in the public interest to retire him. He ch_'.i~.iged the order on the ground, inter alia, that there was violation of n;.. . ...:.-JI justice in that the appellant was not informed of the evidence on which the order \Vas based and no opportu- nity was given to him for explaining a\~:ay suc:1 evidence. The respon<lent stated that the action was taken on a consideration of the confidential reports submitted in respect of the appellant and that it was not based on any prejudice against him. The High Court dismissed the petitioa. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : ( 1) As the Confidential Reports Rules stood at the relevant time, the appellant could not have appealed against the adverse remarks, and if the opinion of the Government to retire him compulsorily was based primarily on the reports, he could only challenge the order if he was in a position to show that the remarks were arbitrary or ma/a fide. If the Government bona fide formed the opinion that it was in the public interest to retire him, the correctness of that opinion could not be challenged. [310 A-CJ (2) It is difficult to see how the appellant could have explained that it was contrary to public interest to retire him if there was no basis for attacking the order on the ground that it was made arbitrarily or ma/a fide. [309 B-CJ c D E Shivacharana v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280; Union of F • India v, !. N. Sinha, [19711 I S.C.R. 791, followed. Orissa v. Binavani Dei, [19671 I S.C.R. 625, explained. A. K. Kraivak v. Union, [19701 I S.C.R. 457 at 469, referred to. (3) The fact that r. 285 was not so emphatically worded as F.R. 56 (j) considered in J. N. Sinha's case makes no difference, because, both the rules give the Government the same or similar right; and so long as G the right is not qualified it must he held to be absolute. [3 l J H: 312 Al ( 4) If the confidential reports could be acted upon his promotio' could be withheld even if he was not made to retire compulsorily. If on th_e basis of the confidential reports he was asked to retire in compliance with the rule, the appellant could not complain of loss of position which he might have attained i1f there were no adverse remarks against him. [312 B--C) fl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1835 of 1968. A B c D E F G H N. v. PUTTABHATtA v. MYSORE (Mit!er, J.) 30S: Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 21, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2371 of 1967. Appellant appeared in person. M. Veerap/a, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' , Mitter, J. The only point involved in this. appeal by certi- ficate, is whether the order of compulsory retirement dated June 28, 1967 intimating the appellant that it was necessary in the pub- lic interest that he should be retired from service with effect from October 15, 1967 in terms of Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Ser- vices Rules read with Note I thereto was inconsistent with the rules of natural justice in that the appellant was not informed of the evidence on which the order was based and no opportunity was given to him of being heard and meeting or explaining away the evidence ia support of the order, and as such was liable to be quashed. The High Court rejected the writ petition of the appel- lant in which the above and other contentions were raised by him but as the certificate is limited to the one question mentioned above the other points canvassed before the High Court do not fall for consideration. The facts are as follows. The petitioner was a Class-I Health Officer in the Department of Public Health in Mysore State Service in the year 1967. But for the order of retirement which. was ser- ved on him he might have continued in service up to December 31, 1971 when he would have attained the age of 55 years. In June 1967
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.