THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus SAUBHAGCHAND M. DOSHI

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 25-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
SAUBHAGCHAND M. DOSHI 
(S. R. DAS C. J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, 
571 
B. P. SINHA, J. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARKAR JJ). 
Government servant-Compulsory retirement--;-Whether amounts 
Jo dismissal or removal-Whether applicable to Art. 311(2) of the 
Constitution-Bombay Civil Services Rules, as amended by the 
Saurashtra Government, R. 165-A-Whether ultra vires-Constitu-
tion of India, Art. 311(2). 
Rule 165-A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, applicable to 
the State of Saurashtra, as amended, 
provided : Government 
retains an absolute right to retire any Government servant after 
he has completed 25 years qualifying service or 50 ye<trs of age, 
whatever ·the service without giving any reason, and no claim to 
special compensation on this account will be entertained. This 
right will not be exercised except when it is in the public interest 
to dispense with the further services of a Government servant 
such as on account Of inefficiency or dishonesty ............. " 
On October 30, 1952, the Government of ... Saurashtra passed 
an order compulsorily terminating the services of the respondent, 
acting under the above rule. The respondent filed a writ applica-
tion in the High Court challeµging t\le validity of the order on 
the ground that it was made without any notice to him of any 
.charge of misconduct or inefficiency and without any enquiry and 
was, in consequence, in contravention of Art. 311 (2) of the Cons ti· 
tution of India. Though the respondent had completed the age 
of 50 on the date of the order, his contention was that in view of 
the fact that R. 165-A provided that the right to retire will not be 
exercised except on grounds of inefficiency or dishonesty, an order 
retiring an officer before the age of superannuation was in sub-
stance one of dismissat or removal and must satisfy the 
require-
ments of Art. 311(2), and that R. 165-A, in so far as it authorised 
the Government to terminate the services without any reason and 
without any enquiry, was repugnant to Art. 311(2) and therefore 
ultra vires. 
Held, that R. 165-A is not violative of Art. 311(2) and is intra 
vires, and that. the impugned order, dated October 30, 1952, is 
valid. 
An order under R. 165-A is not one of dismissal or ·removal· 
and Art. 311(2) is not applicable to such an order. 
Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1955) 
I.S.C.~. 26, 
explained and followed. 
1957 
September 25. 
19~7 
Tht Statt of 
Bombay 
v. 
SaMbhagchand 
M. Do1hi 
'Y~nkatarama 
A.lyar J. 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
182 of 1955. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
February 26, 1954, of tile former Saurashtra High Court 
in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 1953. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, 
for the appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar 
Nath, for the respondent. 
1957. September 25. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AIYAR J.-This 
is an appeal 
against the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Saurashtra in a writ petition filed by the respondent, 
setting aside an order passed by the State of Saurashtra 
on October 30, 1952 retiring him from service. 
The respondent was appointed in 1948 Memandari, 
that is, Superintendent of State Guest Houses, in 
what was the State of Junagadh when it was adminis-
tered by the Government of India, and was, later on, 
confirmed in that appointment. In 1949, Junagadh 
became integrated into the State of Saurashtra, and, 
thereafter, the services of the respondent were 
continued by that State, and he was appointed from 
time to time to various posts. On June 15, 1950, he 
was appointed Sales Tax Officer, Madhya Saurashtra, 
Rajkot, and was confirmed in that post on April 16, 
1952. On October 30, 1952, the Government of 
Saurashtra, purporting to act under Government 
Resolution No. 60 of 1948 as it then stood, passed an 
order compulsorily terminating his services. The res-
pondent thereupon 
filed a writ application in the 
High Court of Saurashtra, challenging the validity of 
this order on the ground that it was made without 
any notice to him of any charge of misconduct or 
inefficiency and without 
any enquiry, and was, in 
consequence, in contravention of Art. 311 (2). 
The 
learned Judges upheld this contention, and set aside 
the order 
in question 
on the 
ground 
that it 
was, in effect, one of dismissal, and that

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