UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus M. E. REDDY AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 19-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
736 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
v. 
M. E. REDDY AND ANR. 
September 19, 1979 
[S, MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. P. SEN, JJ] 
Compulsory retiten1ent-Order passed in terms of Section 16(3) of tTte 
All India Services (Death-cu1n-Retirement) Rules, 1958, whether in violatfon 
of Articles 311(2) of the Constitution. 
I 
The responde.nt in the two appeals was compulsorily. retired by an order 
dated 20-4-74 under Rule 16(3) of the All ]ndia Services (Death-cnm-Retlre-
ment) Rules, 1958. The respondent challenged the said order by filing a Writ 
Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A single Judge Oil' !bat 
Court allowed the petition. 
The said decision was affirmed by the Division 
Bench in appeal. 
Allowing the appeals by certificate the Court, 
HELD: 1. An aoalysis of Rule '16(3) of the All India Services (Death· 
cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 clearly shows that the following essential in-
gredients of the Rule mnst be satisfied before an order of compulsorily retir-
ing a Government servant is passed : (i) that the member of the service must 
have completed 30 years of qualifying service or the age of 50 years 
(as 
modified by notification dated 16-7-1969); 
(ii) that the Government has an: 
absolute right 
to retire the Government servant concerned because the word 
"require" confers an unqualified right on the Central Government servant; 
(iii) that the order must be passed in public interest; and (iy) that three 
months' previous notice in writing shall be given to the Government servant 
concerned before the order is passed. [742 G·H, 743 A-Bl 
The provision gives an absolute right to the GOvemment and not merely 
a discretion, and, therefore impliedly it excludes the rules of natural justice. 
[743 B] , 
2. Compulsory retirement after the employee has put in a sufficient number 
of years of service having qualified for full pension is neither a pnnishment 
nor a stigma so as to attract the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Consti-
tution. In fact, after an employee bas served for 25 or 30 years 'II!d is retired 
on full pensionary benefits, it cannot be said that be suffered any real prejudU:e. 
[743 C..D] 
3. The objecl of Rule 16(3) is to weed out the dead wood in order I<> 
maintain a high standard of efficiency and initiative in the State service. It is 
aot necessary that a good officer may continue to be efficient for all times to 
come. 
It may be that there may be some officers who may possess a betlel' 
initiative and higher standard of efficiency and if given chance the work of 
the Government might show marked improvement. .In such a case conipufsory 
retirement of an officer who fulfils the conditions of Rule 16(3) is undoubted!,. 
in pliblic interest and is not passed by way of punishment. 
Sjn11Iarly, ~ 
:may be cases of officers who are corrupt or of doubtful integrity and ,v<b& 
may be considered fit for being compulsorily retired in public interest. Siilce 
•
y 
,.
;;. 
UNION v. M. E. REDDY 
737 
the¥ have almost reached the fag end of their career ~d their retirement would 
not cast any aspersion, nor does it entail any civil consequences. Of course~ 
it may be said that if such officers \Vere allowed to continue they would have 
drawn their salary until the usual date of retirement. 
But, this is not an 
absolute right which can be claimed by an officer who has put in 30 years 
of service or attained the age of 50 years. Rule 16(3) does nothing of the 
sort of attaching stigma. (743 D-H] 
4. The jurisprudential philosophy of Rule 16(3) and other similarly worded 
provisions like F.R. 56(j) and Other rules relating to G0vemment servants is 
noteworthy. 
Rule 16(3) as it stands is one of the facets of the doctrine of 
pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution and is controlled only 
by those contingencies which are expressly mentioned in Article 311. If the 
order of retirement under Rule 16(3) does not attract Article 311(2), it is 
manifest that no stigma of punishment is inv~lved. The order is passed by 
d:l.e highest authority, namely, the Central Government: in the name of the 
President and expressly excludes the application of rules of natural 
justice~ 
[744A-C] 
The safety valve of public interest iS the most powerful and the strongest 
safegu~rd a~ainst any abuse or colourable exercise of power under this Rule. 
Moreover, when the Court is satisfied that the exercise of power under the 
rule amounts to a colourable exercise of jurisdiction or is arbitr

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