STATE OF HARYANA versus INDER PRAKASH ANAND H.C.S. & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 07-05-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• 
STATE OF HARYANA 
I'. 
INDER PRAKASH ANAND H.C.S. & OTHERS 
May 7, 1976 
fA. N. RAY, C.J., R. S. SARKARIA, P. N. SH!NGHAL AND 
-
JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
603 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 235-Power to compulsorily retire-Whether 
vests in the lligh Court or Governor-Control, nature and scope of. 
The respondent was officiating as Additio.nal Distric! & ~ssions. Jud~e. On a 
reference to the High Court whether he should be retained m service till the age 
of 58 or should be retired at the age of 55, the High Court recommended that 
he should be reverted to his substantive post of Senior Subordinatr Judge but 
that he should be allowed to continue in that post till the age of 58. The State 
Government reverted him but retired him fro.m service at 55 under r. 5.32(c) 
Punjab Civil Service Rules. The rule stat~s that a retiring pension is granted 
to a Governn1ent servant who is retired by the appointing authority on or after 
he attains the age of 55 by giving him 3 months notice. The High Court quashed 
the order of retirement. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: ( 1) Article 235 vests in the High Court control over district courts 
A 
B 
c 
D 
and courts '·subordinate thereto. The control includes both disciplinary and ad-
ministrative iurisdiction. 
Disciplinary control means not merely jurisdiction to 
award punishment for misconduct, but also the power to determine wh_ether the 
record of a member of the service is satisfactory or not so as to entitle him to 
continue in service for the full term till he attains the age of superannuation. 
Administrative, judicial and disciplinary control over members of the judicial 
E 
sevice is vested solely in the High Coll.rt. 
Premature retirement' is fil<!.de in the 
exercise of administrative and discipJinary jurisdiction. It is administrative be~ 
cause it is decided in public interest to retire him prematurely and it is discipli~ 
nary, because, the decision is taken in public interest that he does not deserve to 
continue up to the normal age of superannuation. The fixation of the age of 
superannuation is the right of the State Government. The curtailment of that 
period under rules governing the conditions of service is a matter pertaining to 
disciplinary control as well as administrative control. [605G-H; 606H-607C] 
State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi [1966] I S.C.R. 771 and High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana etc. v. State of Haryana (Sub nom Narendra Singh 
Rao) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 365, followed. 
· 
(2) The control which is vested in the High Court is complete control sub-
ject only to the power of the Governor in the m_atter of appointment, dismissal, 
removal or reduction in rank and the initial posting of and initial promotion to 
District Judges. The vesting of complete control over the subordinate judiciary 
in the High Court, leads to this that if the High Court is of opinion that a parti-
cular officer is not fi~ to ~ retained in service, the High Court will communicate 
that opinion to the Governor, because, the Governor is the authority to dismiss, 
remove or reduce in rank or terminate the appointment. In such cases, the 
Governor, as the head of the State, will act in harmony with the recommenda-
tion of the High Court as otherwise the consequences will be unfortunate. [605H, 
606A·G, H: 607E-F] 
F 
G 
(3) But, compulsory retirement simpliciter does not amount to dismissal or 
ren1ova1 or rcdu,tion in rank under Article 311 or under service rules. When a 
H 
case is not of removal or dismissal or reduction in rank, any order in respect of 
exercise of control over the judicial officers is by the High Court and by no other 
authority; otherwise, it will affect the independence of the judiciary. [605F-G; 
60iC] 
A 
B 
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
fl976J SUPPLEMENTARY 
Shy?m Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1955] I S.C.R. 26; Da/ip Singh v. State 
of Pun1ab [1961] I S.C.R. 88; Tara Si11gh v. State of Rajasthan [1975] 4 S.C.C. 
86; B. Venkateswararao Naidu v. Union of India [1973] l S.C.C. 361 and Sham-
sher Singh cl Anr. v. State of Punjab [1975] I S.C.R. 814, followed : 
( 4) It is not co~rect ~o ~~ntend that the Governor and not the High Court 
has the power to retire a 1ud1c1al officer compulsorily under s. 14 Punjab- General 
Clauses Act.. The suggestion that the High Court reCommends and the State 
Gover!1fllent implements the recommendation in the mattei- of cOinpulsorY-i-ffire-
!Ilent 1s to d~stroy the control of the High Court. It
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.