UNION OF INDIA versus COL. J, N. SINHA AND ANR.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 12-08-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 24 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
I) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
791 
lJNION OF INDIA 
v. 
COL. J, N. SINHA AND ANR. 
August. 12, 1970 
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ,] 
Constitution of India 1950, Arts, 309, 310--Rules made under Art. 
309-Pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. 310-- Fundamental Rule 56(j) 
'embodies pleasure doctrine-Compulsory retirement at age of 50 after 
a certain number of years of service does not have civil consequenceJ-
Rules of natural justice cannot be invoked in such case-Rules of natural 
justice operate only in areas not covered by bw validly made. 
The first respondent joined the post of Extra Assistant Superintendent 
in the Survey of India Service in 1938. 
Later he was taken into the 
Class l Service of the Survey of India and rose to the post of Deputy 
Director. He also 
officiated as 
Director. 
On 
August 13, 1969 
the 
President of India pleased by •n order under Rule 56(j) of the Funda-
mental Rules to compulsorily retire the first respondent from Government 
•ervice. 
No reasons were given in the order. The appellant challenged 
the order by a writ petition in the Hi&h Court . The failure on the part 
of the concerned authority to give opportunity to the first respondent to 
•how cause against his compulsory retirement was held by the High Court 
to have amounted to a contravention of the principles of natural justice. 
Against the judgment of the High Court the Union of India appealed. 
HELD : Rules of m1tural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be 
elevated to the position of fundamental rights. As observed by this Cot:rt 
in Kraipak's case these rules can operate only in areas not covered by any 
law validly made. If a statutory pro,ision can be read consistently with 
the principles of natural justice, the Courts should do so because it mmt 
be presumed that the legislatures and the statutory authorities intend to act 
in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 
But on the other 
hancl a statutory provision either specificall¥ or by necessary implication 
excludes the application of any or all the pnnciples of natural justice then 
the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory 
authority and read with the concerned provision the principles of natural 
justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred should be 
made in 
accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends 
upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature 
of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred and the 
effect of the exercise of the power. [794 G-795 CJ 
Fundamental Rule 56(i) does not in terms require that any opport-
unity should be given to the concerned Government servant to show cause 
against his compulsory requirement. It says that the appropriate authority 
has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion 
that it is in the public interest to do so. If that authority bona fith forms 
that opinion the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before 
courts, though it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite 
opinion has not been form<:d or the decisi0n is based on collateral grounds 
or that it is an arbitrary decision. The respandent had not challenged the 
impugned order on any of these grounds. [795 D-F] 
Compulsory retirement does not involve any civil consequence. 
A 
person retired unde'f Rule 56(i) does not lose any of the rights acquired 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 197 l] l S.C.R. 
by hin1 before retirc1ncnt. The rule is not intended f?r 
takin~ any :penal 
action against govcrn1ncnt servants. lt n1ercly c111bod1cs one ot the facet~ 
L)f the pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. 310 of the Constitution. 
The 
rule holds the balance bct\\·cen the right) of the individual government 
servant and the interests of the public. 
While a minimun1 service is 
guarantcc<l to the govcrnn1cnt sc:vant, the g~vcrntnent is give~ pow~r. to 
energise its n1achincrv an0 make it more efficient by con1pulsonly retiring 
those \vho in its opinion should not be there in public interest, 
Three 
inonth's notil:e is provided to enable the retired en1ployee to find 
out 
other suitable cmploment. [795 G-796 Bl 
On the above vic\v of the h1v.·, nan1cly, th;1t no notice to sho'.'.·-causc 
was required, the appeal must be allowed. 
T. G. Silirncharmia Singh v. St11te of Mysore. 
A.LR. 1965 S.C. 280. 
A 
B 
Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India, A.LR. 1970, S.C. 150, State of 
C 
Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) 

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