Issues Involved: 1. Disputed questions of fact in a writ petition. 2. Nature of the order refixing the age of the respondent. 3. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution. 4. Adherence to principles of natural justice and fair play. 5. Validity of the administrative order involving civil consequences.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disputed Questions of Fact in a Writ Petition: The State contended that the High Court should not have decided disputed questions of fact in a writ petition. The Supreme Court held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not precluded from deciding questions of fact. The discretion lies with the High Court to determine whether to enter upon such an enquiry. In this case, the High Court found that the question of whether the State acted arbitrarily did not involve complicated issues of fact, thus justifying its decision to proceed.
2. Nature of the Order Refixing the Age of the Respondent: The State argued that the order refixing the respondent's age was administrative, and the High Court had no authority to review it. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that even administrative orders must comply with the principles of natural justice. The High Court was correct in reviewing the order as it involved civil consequences for the respondent.
3. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution: The State claimed that Article 311, which provides protection against dismissal or removal without a reasonable opportunity to be heard, did not apply as the respondent was not dismissed or removed but merely superannuated. The Supreme Court noted that compulsory retirement under the guise of superannuation without following due process amounts to removal under Article 311. Since no proper enquiry was conducted, the High Court rightly held the order invalid.
4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play: The Supreme Court emphasized that any order prejudicial to a person's vested rights must be made in accordance with natural justice and fair play. The respondent was not given a fair opportunity to contest the evidence or present her case. The enquiry was deemed irregular as the respondent was not informed of all the evidence against her, nor was she given a chance to explain discrepancies in the records.
5. Validity of the Administrative Order Involving Civil Consequences: The Supreme Court reiterated that even administrative orders involving civil consequences must adhere to natural justice. The respondent was not informed of the case against her nor given a chance to respond adequately. The enquiry and subsequent decision were thus contrary to basic justice principles, rendering the order invalid. The High Court's decision to set aside the State's order was upheld.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the order of retirement was invalid due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The respondent was entitled to continue in service until April 10, 1968, as originally recorded. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
9911796707
