STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus MANOHAR LAL

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 10-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
v.
MANOHAR LAL
· DECEMBER.IO, 1986
[R. S. PATHAK, V. KHALID AND B.C. ,RAY, JJ.]
J!unjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975; rr. 2(i), 3,
12.l & 13.9(2)-Sub Inspector of Police-Competent Authority to pass
order of compulsory retirement-The Authority to make appointment-
Superintendent of Police.
A
B
Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 C
empowers the appropriate authority to retire an employee on the date on
which he completes twenty·five years of qualifying service, or attains fifty
years of age or thereafter, in public interest by priornotice in writing of not less.
than three months. Rule 2(1) designates the officer having powers to make
substantive appointments to the post as the 'appropriate authority'. Rule 12.1
D
categorises Superintendents of Police as the authority competent to make
appointments to the non·gazetted ranks of Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sulr
lnspectors. Rule 13.9(2) empowers Deputy Inspector General of Police to
make substantive promotions to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector in
accordance with r. 13.1.
The respondent who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police was
compulsorily retired by an order dated 24th September, 1975 issued by the
Senior Sup~rintendent of Police.· He was earlier suspended from service with
E
-
effect from 5th September, 1974. A suit filed by him for a declaration that the
said order was illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, and against the rules of
natural justice was dismissed by the trial court holding that the impugned F
t
order was not vitiated by any malice or malafides, having been innocuously
\,-.,__ made in public interest, and decreed the suit in part for the arrears of salary for
A_
the suspension period. Both the State and the respondent preferred appeals.
(
;·he appellate court allc.wing the r"8pondent's appeal, held that the
order of compulsory retirement was made by an officer who was below the G
rank of Inspector General of Police, the 'appointing authority'. of the
petitioner, ·and that the judgment and decree as regards the payment of
'
balance of emoluments for the period of suspension after the reinstatement
was legal and valid and dismissed the appeal filed by the State.
·The High Court dismissed the second appeal preferred by the State.
H
503
A
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] I S.C.R.
Allowing the State's appeal by special leave in part, the Court,
HELD: In view of the specific provision made in rule 12.1 of the Punjab
Civil Services (Premature Retirement I Rules, 1975 that the Superintendent of
Police is competent to make the appointment to the non-gazetted ranks of
Suh-Inspectors of Police, the contmtion that only the Deputy Inspector
B General of Police was competent to make the impugned order cannot be
'1f
•ustained. [507G)
Rule 12.1 read with rule 13.9( Z) makes it clear and apparent that the
Senior Superintendent of Police was legally competent to make the order of
compulsory retirement of a Suh-lmpector of Police from service in public
C interest after attaining 50 years of a::e, in accordance with the provisions of
rule 3(1) (a) and (b) of the Rules. The order ofretirement made in the instant
case, :was, therefore, legal and valid. [507H]
The decree of the lower. "ap11ellate court as regards payment of the
D balance of pay for the period of suspension of the respondant is afl"mned.
[508B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURI:>DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2416 of
1981
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1981 of the Punjab and
!Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2985 of 1980.
F
Rajinder Sachar and R.S. Scdhi for the Appellants.
M.K. Ramamurthy, N.K. Agarwala and S. K. Puri for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, J. This appeal by specid leave is against the judgment and decree
G passed in Regular S.A. No. 2868 of 1980 by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana whereby the appeal was d'.smissed.
The respondent, Manohar Lr,] who was at the relevant time working as
Sub-Inspector in the Police Line, Gurdaspur was compulsorily retired by
Order No. 9754-B dated 24.9.19'.'5 issued by Shri M.M. Batra, Senior
H Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, in public interest. The said order of
-r-
....,..
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANOHAR LAL [RAY, J.]
505
compulsory retirement has been challenged by the respondent by filing a suit
A
being case No. 86 of 1977 praying for a declaration that the aforesai

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