STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus CHANDRA MOHAN NIGAM & OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 19-09-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
CHANDRA MOHAN NIGAM & OTHERS 
Septe111ber 19, 1977 
5 21 
[P. K. GOSWAMI, JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J 
Service Law-All India 
Ser~'ices 
(Death-cun1-Retire111ent Benefits) 
Rules, 
1958, R. 16(3)-Jnstructions by Central 
Go1'ernnu:nt n'garding 
procedul'e, 
whether binding on Governn1e11t-Re1·iew of officer's S!!rvice records at con1ple-
tio11 of 50 years age-Favourable report of Reriew Co1111nittee accepted by 
State and Central Go1•eri1me11ts-Ser1·ice records reviewed by second Rei•iew 
Conunittee on san1e 1naterials, prior to con1plt>tion of 54 years age-Con1pulsory 
retirement 011 reco1nmendation of second Review Con1n1ittee, whether valid-
Retiren1e11t ulr 16(3) ris a 1·is the constitutio1wl right under Preventive Deten-
tion Act. 
Shri Nigam was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. 
During · 
his service career, he had some adverse entries in his chai acter roll. 
He was 
suspended in 1964, pending enquiry on account of certain 
strictures passed 
against him by the Election Tribunal, but was feinstated -when the High Court 
expunged the strictures on appeal. 
On 
December 29, 
1967, 
Shri 
Nigam 
attained the age of 50 years, and, following the Central Government's instruc-
tions, in October 1969, a 
Review Committee 
examined his service 
records 
under R. 16(3) of the All Jndia Services (DCRB) Rules 1958, as amended in 
1969. 
The Committee's recommendation for Shri 
Nigam's continuance 
in 
service, was accepted by the State Government, and the Central Government 
did not communicate any disagreement. 
In May 1970, the State Government 
set up a secOnd Review Committee u/r. 16(3) which exan1ined Shri Nigam's 
service records on the same materials, and recommended compulsory retirement. 
The recommendation Was accepted, and an order dated August 22, 
1970, 
\Vas 
passed, compulsorily retiring him. 
Shri Nigam's writ petition was allowed by 
a Single Judge of the High 
Court, and a State appeal was 
rejected by the 
Division Bench, which found the case to be analogous with the infringement 
of a constitutional right under the Preventive Detention Act. 
Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court, 
HELD: (1) Since Rule 16(3) itself does not contain any guidelines, direc-
tions or criteria, the instructions issued by the Governrilent furnish an essential 
A 
B 
c. 
D 
E 
and salutary procedure for the purpose of securing uniformity in application 
F 
of the rule. They are embedded in the conditions of service, and are binding 
on the Government, and cannot be violated to the prejudice of the Government 
servant. [531 A-B] 
Santra1n Shanna v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [1968] (I) SCR 111 and U11io11 
of India v. K. P. Joseph & Ors. [1973] (2) SCR 752, applied. 
(2) Once a Review Committee h.as considered the case of an en1ployee, and 
the Central Government does not decide, on the report of the committee endorsed 
G 
by the State Government to take any prejudicial action against an officer there 
is no w:arrant f~r a se~ond Review Co~mittee under the scheme of rule' 16(3) 
read with the 1nstruct1ons, to reassess his case on the same materials 
unless 
exccpti9nal ci_rcun1stances emerge in the mean tim~ or \Vhen the n~xt stage 
for review arrives. 
[531 C-Dl 
. 
(3) !he principle ~overni~g the order of rreventive detention with regard 
to effective representation against such order, is not applicable in the case of 
an order for compul~ory retirement. which c.3sts no stigma on a Government 
H 
~eryant. The test. which ~as. ~een la~d down in the· case of preventive detention 
is. 1n conte~t of .nght to 1nd1v1dual lrbcrty of a person which is a fundamental 
nght enshnned 10 the Constitution while the order of con1pulsory retirement 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1978] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
is passed in respect of a Government servant who has ceased to have a right, 
as such, to continu.: in Government 
service under the rules 
governing 
his 
employment. 
[528 G-H] 
B 
State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mahapatra [1963] Supp. 
(I) SCR 648, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 161 of 1974 
and 1782 of 1973. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated 13-4-1973 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Special Appeal No. 698 of 1971. 
S. N. Kacker, Sol. Gen., 0. P. Rana for the Appellant in CA 
No. 
161!74 and R-2 in CA No. 1782173. 
S. N. Kacker, Sol. Genl. and Girish Chandra for the Appellant in 
C 
CA No. 1782173. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Yogeshwar Prasad, (Mrs.) S. K. Bagga,

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