STATE OF U.P. versus SHYAM LAL SHARMA

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 12-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

184 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
SHYAM LAL SHARMA 
August, 12, 1971 
(S. M. S!KRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
Civil service-Compulsory Retirement-
Order when can be said to be by way of Punishment 
The Order compulsorily retiring the respondent, a head constable, 
made reference to a letter dated March 16, 1962 of the Police Head 
Quarters approving a proposal by the Superintendent of Police, dated 
February 14, 1962, for the compulsory retirement of the respondent. 
The proposal had mentioned that the respondent was "considered to 
be a bad lot incorrigible and no longer useful"'. 
The respondent filed a 
suit for a declaration that the Order was illegal since the procedure 
under Art. 311 of the Constitution and r. 55 of the Civil Service Regula-
tions was not followed. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. 
In appeal 
the Civil and Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the proposal 
dated February 14, 1962, 
formed the necessary adjunct to the order 
leading to compulsory retirement and passed a decree in favour of the 
respondent. 
The High Court confirmed the decree. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: In ascertaining whether an order of compulsory retirement 
is one of punishment it has to be seen whether in the order there is any 
element of charge or stigma or imputation or any implication of mis-
behaviour or incapacity 
against the officer concerned. 
Where the 
authorities can make an order of compulsory retirement for any reason 
and no reason is mentioned in the order it cannot be predicated that the 
order of compulsory retirement has an inherent stigma in it. Unless it 
is established from the order itself that a charge or imputation against 
the officer is made the condition of the exercise of the power or that 
by the order the officer is losing benefits already earned, the order 
cannot be said to be one for dismissal or removal or in the nature of 
penalty or punishment. [189 B; 192 D, E] 
In the present case the order of compulsory retirement does not 
suffer from any such -.lice nor can it be, on the facts found, said to have 
been passed on account of malice. The High Court fell into the error of 
holding that the order contained stigma by going behind the order of 
retirement and also by misreading the proposal dated February 14, 
1962 in the manner not warranted by the letter itself containing a mere 
proposal for compulsory retirement. Only the proposal was sent for 
approval. The order cannot be stated to sustain the plea of punish-
ment by extracting opinions expressed by the authorities in regard to 
the officer in the past. [192 F; 190 C-D] 
I. N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 496, 
followed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
< ' 
A 
U.P. STATE V. S. L. SHARMA (Ray, J.) 
185 
Shyam Lal v. State of U.P .. [1966] I 'S.C.R. 26, State of Bombay v. 
Saubhagchand M. Doshi, [1958] S.C.R. 571, De.lip Singh v. State of 
Punjab, [1961] I S.C.R. 88 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Medan Moha11 
Nagar, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 333, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE ~URISDICTJON : Civil Appeal No. 1203 
ll of 1969 
c 
Appeal by spedal leave from the judgmem and order 
dated September 20, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court m 
Second Appeal No 1791 of 1967 
L. M.Singhvi and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
R. N. Sharma, N. N. Sharma and C. P. Lal for 
t'~c 
respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, J.-This appeal is by special leave against the 
0 
judgment dated 20 September, 1968 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the appeal preferred 
by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the decree passed 
by the Court of Civil and Sessions Judge in favour of 
the plaintiff-respondent declaring that the order of removal. 
of the plaintiff-respondent from service is void and is illegal 
E 
~nd th~ plaintiff-respondent should be deemed to be still 
m service. 
The only question for consideration in this 
appeal 
is whether the order of compulsory retirement of the plain-
tiff-respondent was one of punishment. 
F 
The High Court came to the conclusion that the order 
of compulsory retirement dated 28 March, 1962 and the 
letter dated 16 March, 1962 referred to in the order of 
compulsory retirement and the memorandum dated 14 
February, 1962 referred to in the letter dated 16 March 
1962 when 
read together established that the order of 
G compulsory retirement was to punish the 
plaintiff-res~ 
pondent. 
,
The ordi;r i;l&;teg i& J.1&:rll.h, IQ()i_ \YliS ~s follows:-
~~'"'~'A~ pefoWf

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