UNION OF INDIA versus P.S. DHILLON

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 12-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
P.S. DHILLON 
APRIL 12, 1996 
B 
fS.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Seivice Law : 
Compulsory retirement-Govemment se1vanl ordered to compulsorily 
C retire at the age of 55 yea1s in temis of FR 56(j)-Not completed /0 years of 
qualifying se1vice required for grant of pensionary benefits-Held : Not an 
order of punishment. 
Compulsory retirement-Opinion that retention of Govemment se1vant 
was not in public interest-Fanning of-Pre-confinnation adverse matelial 
D taken into consideration for fanning of such opinion--Held : Such adverse 
matelial rightly taken into consideration to fonn the requisite opinion. 
Compulsory retirement-Proposal-Initiation and procedure for-Judi-
cial Member of Income Tax Appellate T1ibunal--Recommendation for com-
pulsory retirement of--l'ursuant to the proposal from the Minis(ly of Law a11d 
E Justice (Mi11istry concemed) Law Secretary forwarded his recommendation to 
the Cabinet Secretary-Cabinet Secretary placed the same with his own 
recomme11dation before the ACC (Appointments Committee of the 
Cabinet}-ACC accepted recommendation and passed order of compulsory 
retirement-Held : Such procedure. was not inconsistent with OM dated 
F 
5-1-1978-Contentio11 that proposal should have been initiated by Cabi11et 
Secretmy, rejected-Office Memora11dum dated 5-1-1978-/TAT Members 
(Recrnitme11t and Co11ditions of Service) Rules, 1963, Sections 11 and 13. 
Retiren1ent-C rnnpu lsory ref i re111ent-O rd er 
o~Representation 
against-By Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-Competent 
G Authority to deal with--Held: Cabi11et Secretary is the Compete11t Authority 
to deal with such representation a11d to make recommendation to the A CC 
and not the Senior Selectio11 Boar~Appendix II to Office Memorandum 
dated 5-1-1978. 
The respondent, after he had attained the age of 35 years, was ap-
H pointed as a Judicial Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 
234 
UNION OF INDIA v. P.S. DHILLON 
235 
and was confirmed in the post with effect from 1-4-199S. There was an A 
adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the respondent 
for the year 1983. The proposal for compulsory retirement of the respon-
dent was initiated in the Ministry of Law and Justice, the cadre controlling 
authority. Before initiating further action against the respondent he was 
given a hearing by the Minister for Law and Justice regarding the various 
complaints that had been received against the respondent with regard to his 
performance as a member of the !TAT as well as the complaint sent by his 
wife. Thereafter, the Law Secretary sent the recommendation for compul-
sory retirement of the respondent under FR S6(j), after he had attained the 
age of SS years, to the Cabinet Secretary, who in turn placed the matter 
before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) with his recom-
mendation and the ACC approved the prematu<e retirement of the respon-
dent under FR S6(j). Thereupon the order for compulsory retirement of the 
respondent was passed. The respondent filed an application before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said order of compulsory 
retirement. The Tribunal allowed the application on the grounds that after 
B 
c 
the respondent's confirmation the adverse material on record prior to D 
1-4-198S should have been disregarded; and that the competent authority to 
deal with compulsory retirement was the Senior Selection Board and not the 
Cabinet Secreatry vide Appendix II to Office Memorandum dated 5-1-1978. 
Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that since the respon-
E 
dent was compulsorily retired before he completed 10 years of qualifying 
service for grant ofpensionary benefits, the order of compulsory retirement 
was an order of punishment; and that the guidelines laid down in Office 
Memorandum dated S-1-1978 were not complied with inasmuch as the 
proposal for compulsory retirement was initiated by the Ministry of Law 
and Justice and not by the Cabinet Secretary. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The respondent was appointed as a member of the Income 
F 
Tax Appellate Tribunal (!TAT) after he had attained the age of3S years and G 
in his case the power of compulsory retirement could be invoked after he 
had attained.the age of SS years. Admittedly, the respondent had attained 
the age of SS years when the impugned order with regard to his compulsory 
retirement was passed. Merely becaus

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