TEJ PAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 05-08-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TEJ PAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
,.. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. &ANR. 
B 
AUGUST 5, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
i 
Constitution of India, Article 235: Subordinate Judiciary-High 
} 
c 
Court's control-Nature and scope of -Premature retirement of judi-
cial officer-High Court alone competent to come to conclusion after 
~ 
assessment ofperformance--Govemor thereafter to pass order. 
Rules of Court (High Court of Allahabad), {952: Rules 3,4,5 & 
12-Administrative Committee could act for and on behalf of the 
D 
Court-Not Administrative Judge--Judicial Officer-Premature retire-
ment-Only Administrative Committee can recommend to Govern-
ment. 
The appellant was working as an Additional District and Sessions 
Judge in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State Government moved the 
E 
High Court in the year 1967 for his premature retirement. On July 8, 
1968 the Administrative Judge agreed with the proposal to retire the 
.... 
appellant after giving him three months notice. The Governor passed 
the order of retirement on August 24, 1968. Three days thereafter, on 
August 27, 1968 the Administrative Committee of the High Court gave 
its approval to the opinion of the Administrative Judge earlier com-
,, 
F 
municated to the State Government. Thereafter, on August 30, 1968 the ., \ 
Additional Registrar transmitted the order of retirement to the appel-
lant. The order was purported to be made under para (i) of the first 
proviso to cl. (a) of Fund~mental Rule 56. 
)( 
Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed a writ petition 
G 
before the High Court alleging: (i) that the retirement had been ordered 
without the recommendation of the High Court as required by Article 
235 of the Constitution; (ii) that Fundamental Rule 56, under which the 
order had been issued was violative of Articles 14 and 16, and (iii) that 
the premature retirement was in violation of Article 311(2). 
,., 
H 
As the question relating to the vires of Fundamental Rule 56 was 
428 
T.P. SINGH v. STATEOFU.P. 
429 
pending before the High Court in two other writ petitions, the three 
A 
matters were referred to a Full Bench, which held that paragraph (i) of 
the proviso to cl. (a) of Fundamental Rule 56 was violative of Articles 14 
and 16. 
Immediately thereafter the Governor issued an Ordinance 
amending Fundamental Rule 56 and validating actions already taken 
thereunder. The appellant thereupon sought amendment of his writ 
petition questioning the validity of the Ordinance and the U.P. Act No. 
5 of 1970 which replaced the Ordinance. 
Dismissing the writ petition the High Court took the view that 
whenever the Governor proposed to make an order of premature retire-
ment in respect of a District Judge or a Subordinate Judicial Officer he 
was only expected to consult the High Court on the question and that 
this consultation with the High Court was permissible even after the 
Governor had passed the order of compulsory retirement. It equated 
the recommendation that should be made by the High Court under 
Article 235 before a judicial officer can be prematurely retired to the 
consultation contemplated under Article 320(3) (c) in respect of discipli-
nary matters affecting civil services and held that such consultation 
with the High Court was uot mandatory and that failure to do so did not 
afford a cause of action in a court of law. 
On the question: whether the order of compulsory retirement 
passed against the appellant satisfies the requirements of the Consti-
tution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: I. The impugned order of pr~mature retirement passed 
by the Governor on the opinion of the Administrative Judge without 
having before him the recommendation of the Administrative Commit-
tee or of the Full Court was void and ineffective. The High Court was in 
error in not construing the applicability and scope of Article 235 of the 
Constitution while deciding the case. 
2.1 Without the recommendation of the High Court it is not open 
to the Governor to issue an order retiring prematurely Judges of Dis-
trict Courts and the subordinate courts. 
2.2 While it may be open to the Government to bring to the notice 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
of the High Court all materials having a bearing on the conduct of a 
District Judge or a subordinate judicial officer, which may be in its 
possession, the Government cannot take the initiative to retire prema-
turely a 

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