SMT. S. R. VENKATARAMAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 02-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
H 
2 02 
SMT. S. R. VENKATARAMAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
November 2, 1978 
[P. N. SI!!NGHAL AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
• 
Fu11da1nental 
Rules-Rule 56 (i) (i)-Order of Cornpulsory 
retirement l11 
...., 
'pubfic intt:.rest'-Nothing on record to justify the order-Order if should be 
set aside. 
Adn1i11i.strative Law-Administrative action--An abuse of power-What fr-
Order based on non-existing fact-Effect of. 
Words and l'hrases-'Malice in fact' and 'Malice in law'-Explained and 
distinr:uishcd. 
The appellant who was \vorking as Joint Director, Family Pllam.ning in the 
Directorate-General of the All India R:;:.dio was prematurely retired from ser-
vice. 
She made a representation, but it was rejected. 
In her writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution she alleged that she 
had a long and rlean record of nearly three. decades but that baseless allega~ 
tions had been n1ade against her, because of malicious vendetta of the then 
Chairman of the Central Board of Film Omsors. She also alleged that lhe 
impugned order was arbitrary and capricious and that the retiring authurity 
bad not aprlied its mind to the record of her case. 
1he '\Vrit fCtitiOll W3S dismissed in limine. 
On the appeal, the first respondent conceded that there was nothing 
on 
the record to iu~ tify the impugned order, and that the Government was not 
f 
in n position to support that unfair order. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) There was nothing on the record to show that the Chairman 
.of the Central Board of Film Ceruors was able to influence the Central Gov-
..ernment rn making the impugi:wd order. It was not therefore the case of the 
appellant that there was actual malicious intention on the part of the Govern~ 
ment in making the alleged wrongful order so as to amount to malice in fact. 
[205E] 
(2) Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from 
the doing of a wrongful act intentionally hllt without just cause or excuse or 
for want of reasonable or probable cause. 
[205G] 
Shearer & Anr. v. Shi1lds, [1914] A.C. 808 at p. 813 referred to. 
(3) It was not necessary to examine the question of malice in law as it 
was trite law that if a discretionary power had been exercised for an unauthcr 
rised purpose, it was generally immaterial whether its repository \Vas acting in 
good faith or in bad faith. [205H-206A] 
•• 
• 
SMT. VENKATARAMAN v. UNION (Shinghal, !.) 
2 03 
Pilling v. Abergele Urban District Council, [1950] 1 K.B. 636; referred to. 
A 
( 4) Th<' principle which is applicable in such cases is that laid down by 
Lord Esher M.R. in 24 Q.B.D. 371 at p. 375, and followed in (1924) 1 Ch. 
483. 
[206C-D) 
(5) Wl>m a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence 
of a non-e:xisting fact or circumstance it will be an error of fact. 
That is so 
B 
clearly ullreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief 
n1ight 
. almost be said to have been done in bad faith. 
[206E] 
(6) Whe:n the respondent conceded that there was nothing on record 
to 
justify the impugned order, that order must be set aside for it amounts to an 
abuse of the po\ver which was vested in the authority concerned as it lwd 
admitted the influence of extraneous matter. 
[206H-207A] 
C 
(7) It will be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy 
her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which 
mttkes a useful provision for the prematllre retirement of Government servants 
only in the "public interest", to a purpose wholly unwarranted by it, and to 
arriTe at qui_te a contradictory result. 
[206F] 
(8) An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do 
D 
not exist must be held to be infected with abuse of power. 
[206G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2764 of 1977. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24-11-76 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 1264/76). 
M. K. Ramamurthi and Faqir Chand for the appellant. 
P. N. Le.khi and Girish Chandra for the respondent. 
E 
' 
The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by 
-.A 
•, 
SmNGHAL J., This appeal by special leave is directed against an 
crder of the Delhi High Court dated November 24, 1976, dismissing the 
F 
appellant's writ petition in limine. 
The appellant was promoted to the post of Director in the All Indla 
Radio after some thirty years of service under the Government of India. 
She was working as Joint Director, Family Planning, in the Directorate 
General of the All Ind

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