UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI DULAL DUTI

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 05-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SHRI DULAL DUTI 
FEBRUARY 5, 1993 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, CJ, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND 
B 
S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
-·-.( 
Fundamental Ru/es-Rules 56(3) read with Rule 1802 (a) of the Rail-
way Establishment Code, ~ume II, 1987 Editiott-Compulsory retirement 
order-Whether to be a speaK~der. 
C 
Civil Services-Indian Railway Stores Service-Compulsory retire-
ment-Whether to be a speaking order. 
Railway Establishment Code : Volume II, 1987 Editio1t-Rule 1802 
(a), read with Rule 56 (J) F.R.-Compulsory retirement orde1'--U'hether to be D 
a speaking order. 
On 12.6.1958, the r<spondent joined Indian Railway Stores Service 
as Class I officer. He was promoted as District Controller or Stores in 
1974, as Additional Controller of Stores in 1980 and as Controller of 
Stores in 1982. 
E 
Respondent was served a major penalty charge-sheet dated 
5.12.1989 on the charge or finalisation or a tender case of 1983 and another 
major penalty charge-sheet dated 23.4.1990 on the charge of construction 
ofa residential house during 1981-87 at high cost. 
By urde;" dated 24.4.1990, which was served on the respondent on 
~ " 
28.1.1991, he was compulsory retired. The delay in the service of the order 
was doe to the court proceedings initiated against him. 
F 
Respondent challenged the orde1· dated 24.4.1990 before the Central G 
Administrative Tribunal. 
The Union of India submitted before the Tribunal that the right to 
retire a Government servant prematurely was an absolute one and the 
only requirement was that there should be the formation of an opinion; 
that in the present case, the opinion was formed in public interest and the H 
853 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
requirement of the Rule was strictly complied with. 
B 
c 
The tribunal allowed the application against which the Union of 
India flied the present appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the Appeal, Ibis Co11rt, 
HELD : 1.01. An order of a compulsory retirement is not an order 
of punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government but it should 
be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction 
of the Government. Very often, on enquiry by the Court the Government 
may disclose the material but it is very much different from the saying 
that the order should be a speaking order. No order of compulsory 
retirement is required to be a speaking order. [861A-B] 
1.02. The Tribunal completely erred in assuming, in the circumstan· 
ces of the case, that there ought to have been a speaking order for 
D compulsory retirement. [860H] 
E 
F 
G 
1.03. From the very order of the Tribunal it is clear that the Govern· 
ment bad, before it, the report of the Review Committee yet it thought it 
flt of compulsory retiring the respondent. The order cannot be called 
either ma/a fide or arbitrary in law. [861C] 
Baikuntha Nath Das and another ·v. Chief District Medical Officer, 
Baripada and another, (1992] 2 SCC 299; R.L. Butail v. Union of India, 
(1970] 2 SCC 876 and Union of India v. J.M. Sinha, [1970] 2 SCC 458, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 572 of 
1993. 
From ihe Judgment and Order dated 29.5.92 of the Ceotral Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench~ iri 0.A. No. 455 of 1991. 
V. R. keddy, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and 
V.K. Verma for the AppeJlants. 
G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-y 
-y 
-
' 
-
U.0.1. v. DULAL DUTI [DAYAL, J.] 
855 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Heard. Special leave granted. With the A 
consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal itself is being disposed 
of. 
The brief facts leading to this appeal are as below :-
The respondent joined Indian Railway Stores Service as Class I B 
Officer on 12th June, 1953. He was promoted to. the senior scale as District 
Controller of Stores in 1974, as Additional Controller of Stores in 1980 and 
as Controller of Stores in 1982. 
At the relevant time the respondent was posted as Controller of C 
Stores, Metro Railway, Calcutta. A major penalty charge-sheet dated 5th 
Deceml.ier, 1989 was served on the respondent on the charge of finalisation 
of a tender case of 1983. Another major penalty charge-sheet was served 
on the respondent on 23rd Apri~ 1990 on the charge of construction of a 
residential house at Salt Lake, Calcutta during 1981-87 at high cost. 
The respondent was issued the impugned order dated 24th April, 
1990 by the Joint Secretary (E), Rail

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