STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR versus SRIPAL JAIN

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 24-01-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 -
~1.1.1"""""' 
•• 
SAcrdml<l Pod"11 
A.t1flllz<l'.I· 
191$ 
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
should, when they allowed the appeal, have con-
firmed the sale to them for Rs. 3,35,000/-. We 
consider there is no substance in this submi..esion . 
The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed 
with the costs of the 1st respondent. 
Appeal dismi8sed. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR 
"· 
SRIPAL JAIN 
(B. P. SINIIA., c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, M. HrnAYATULLAH and 
j. C. SHAH, jj.) 
Siau S.nrict-Onler of compul.aory r.tirem•nt-Power of 
IMptdor-Gt.neral of Polke-Order if amaunt. to puni./1menl-
l/ must be •ubmiti.d t-0 
Governor-Conati!ulion of India, 
Arla. 166, 311-Rajaathan Serviu Ruk•, rr. 56, 244(2)-
Ruja8tlzan Civil Servicta (Gla~•ification, Conlrol and Appeal) 
Ruka, 1958, "· 14, 34-iluka of Bu.ainus,., rr. 21, 3J(vii)-
Rajaatlian General Clau.u Act, 1955 (Vlll of 1955), sa. 32(33), 
32(75). 
The respondent in the present ap!'C'li 
was a Circle 
Inspector in the Rajasthan State Service. He was compulsorily 
retired from service and the order WlS communicated to him by 
the luspcctor·Gencral of Police. Thereafter he filed a writ 
r..<;tition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the order. 
fhc High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that 
r. 31 (vii) (a) of the Rules of Business applied to a case of 
compulsory retirement under r. 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service 
Rules and as the papc,.. had not been submitted to the Gover· 
nor the order of compulsory retirement in the present r.ase was 
bad. The State of Rajaathan appealed to this Court by way 
of 1pccial leave. 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME copRT REPORTS 
743 
The main question before this Court was whether a case 
of compulsory retirement under r. '244(2) of the Service Rules 
has to be submitted to the Governor under r. 3l(viij(a) 
of the Rules of Business. It was further contended on behalf 
of the respondent that r. 244(2) of the Service Rules contem-
plated an order of compulsory retirement by the Government 
and not by the I nspcctor-General of Police as was done in the 
present case. The respondent also contended that since the 
order was not in the form prescribed by Art. 166 of the Consti-
tution it was bad. His last contention was that by reasi>n 
of s. 32(75) of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, an 
order under r. 244(2) of the Service Rules means an order by 
tb.c Governor. 
Held, that compulsory retirement provided in r. 31(vii)(a} 
is a compulsory retirement as a penalty and not compulsory 
retirement of the other two kinds namely ( 1) compulscry 
retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and (2) 
compulsory retirement under r. 244(2), neither of which is a 
punishment. It was not therefore necessary to submit the 
papers with respect to compulsory retirement of the respon\lent 
under r. 244(2} to the Governor. 
It is well settled that any ·defect of form in 'the order 
would not necessarily make it illegal and the only consequence 
of the order not being in proper form as req ~ired by Art. 166 
is that the burden is thrown on the Government to show that 
the order was in fact passed by it. The recommendation made 
by a high power committee for the compulsory retirement of 
the respondent having been approved by the Home Minister 
and by the Chief Minister. by virtue of r. 21 the impugned 
order is one .made by the Government. 
The dc6nition of (Government' and 'State Govtrnment' 
in the Rajasthan General Clauses Act does not support the 
contention of the respondent in the light of the above interpre-
tation of r. 31 (vii}( a) of the Business Rules. 
CIVIL APPELLATEjURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 299/62. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated February 23, 1961, of the Rajasthan 
High Court in D. B. Civil Writ No. 416of1960. 
G. C. Ka8liwal, Advocate-General for the State 
of RajaBthan, S. K. Kapur and P. D. Meno1,, for the 
appcllant1. 
1963 
Stall of Rajas,,,,_ 
•• 
Sripol ltia 
1963 
SIM4 qf IUj4JINa 
... 
Sn,.J 1• 
W....W,I. 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. 
Veda Vyaaa and K. K. Jain, for the respondent. 
1963. January 24. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special 
leave against the judgment of the Rajasthan High 
Court. The respondent was in the service of the 
State of Rajasthan and at the material time was a 
circle inspector. 
He was compulsorily retired from 
service on September 3, 1960 under r. 244 (2) of the 
Rajasthan Servi

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