STATE OF ORISSA versus DR. (MISS) BINAPANI DEI & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 07-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 23 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
DR. (MISS) BINAPANI DEi & ORS. 
February 7, 1967 
(J.C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ]. 
Natural Justice-Gove~nment servant-Enquiry 
held 
into date of 
birth-Report and evidence not disclosed--Oppo:tunlry to meet ••ld•nc• 
not given-Date re-fixed and 
compulsory 
retirement 
orderod--Order 
whether sustainable. 
Constitution of India, Art. 226-High Court's discretion to go into 
questions vf fact. 
The first respondent joined the service of the State Government in 
1938. In 1961 the Government held an enquiry into her date of birth. 
She was then asked to show cause why a certain date should not be t2ken 
as her date of birth. The report of the enquiry .officer was not <fuclosed, 
and the first respondent was not given an opportunity to meet the evidence 
used against her. The Government 'refuted the date of birth of the first 
respondent and ordered that she be compulsorily retired. 
The first res· 
pondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed. 
The State appealed, 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant State that (i) the High 
Court in dealing with a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitntion ought 
not to have proceeded to determine disputed questions of fact, (ii) the 
order re-iixing the date of birth of the respondent was an administrative 
order and the High Court had no power to sit in appeal over the decision 
of the State authorities. 
HELD : (i) Under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court is 
not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised 
by the petition. 
Whe.re an enquiry into complicated questions of fact 
arises in a petition, the High Court may in appropriate cases decline to 
enter upon the enquiry and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. 
But the question is one of discretion and not of the jurisdiction of the 
Court. No interference with the exercise of the discretion of the High 
Court in the present case was called for. (627 G] 
(ii) Even an administrative order which 
involves civil consequences 
must be made consistently with the rules of natnral justice. 'lbe person 
concerned must be informed of the case of the State and the evidence in 
support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case 
before an adverse decision is taken. In the present case 110 auch ateps 
were admittedly taken; the High Court was therefore right in setting a1ide 
the order of the State. [630 GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 499 of 
1.965. 
. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 6, 1964 of the 
Orissa High Court on 0. 1. C. No. 254of1963. 
Dipak Dutta Choudhury and R. N. Sachthey for the appellant. 
Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 
626 
SUPllBMB C:OUIT llBPOllTS 
( 1967] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. The first respondent who holds the degree of M .B.B.S. 
of the Punjab University, the Diploma in Gynaecology and Obste-
trics from the Madras University and the Diploma in Obstetrics 
from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of 
London was aprointed on June 12, 1938, as Assistant Surgeon in the 
Orissa Medical Service. At the time of her appointment by the 
Omsa Government. the first respondent declared that her date of 
birth was April 10, 1910. The first respondent claims that her claim 
was supported by document?.ry cvide~ce tendered by her father 
which was verified and accepted and the birth date was recorded in 
the Civil List and in the History of Service of Gazetted Officers 
of the Government of Oriss;1 maintained bv the Accountant General 
of the State. In the normal course the first respondent would have 
been due for superannuation on April 10, 1965, after comrleting 
the age of 55 years. 
But in consequence of a notification of the 
State of Orissa dated May 21, 1963, the age of superannuation was 
raised from 55 to 58 years in respect of all Government servants 
who were to retire after December ! , 1962. 
Some anonvmous letters were addressed to the Accountant 
General that the first respondent had mis-slated her age when she 
was admitted to Service of the State. 
After an inquiry the first 
respondent was required to show cause why her date of birth should 
not he accepted as April 4, 1907. The first respondent submitted 
that her date of birth was correctly rccMded and that certain school 
record relied upon by the Stat~ "was erased, altered or overwritten". 
By letter dated June 27, 1963. the Governme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.