Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1978 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1978 (11) TMI 154 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Premature retirement of a government servant under clause (j) (i) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, exercise of discretionary power, malice in law, influence of extraneous matters on administrative orders.

Summary:
The appellant, a government servant, was prematurely retired from service under clause (j) (i) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, on the ground of public interest. The appellant challenged this retirement through a writ petition, alleging bias, malice, and lack of proper consideration in the decision-making process. The appellant contended that the premature retirement order was arbitrary, capricious, and not made in accordance with the prescribed criteria and procedures. The appellant highlighted favorable assessments in her service record and lack of justifiable reasons for the retirement decision.

The court noted that the power to retire a government servant prematurely must be exercised in line with established criteria and procedures. The appellant's claim of malice was examined, distinguishing between malice in fact and malice in law. The court emphasized that if discretionary power is used for an unauthorized purpose, the good or bad faith of the decision-maker is irrelevant. The court cited precedents to support the principle that decisions based on non-existent facts or influenced by extraneous matters amount to an abuse of power.

Upon review of the appellant's case and the admission by the Union of India that there was no justification for the premature retirement order, the court concluded that the decision was unfair and amounted to an abuse of power. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the retirement order, and directed the government to bear the costs.

In conclusion, the court's decision highlighted the importance of proper exercise of discretionary powers, adherence to established procedures, and avoidance of decisions influenced by extraneous factors in administrative matters involving government servants' premature retirement.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates