1963 (1) TMI 49 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Inspector General of Police to order compulsory retirement.
2. Whether compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules is a punishment.
3. Requirement of submission to the Governor under Rule 31(vii)(a) of the Business Rules.
4. Validity of the order of compulsory retirement not being in the form required by Article 166 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Inspector General of Police to order compulsory retirement:
The respondent contended that the Inspector General of Police had no authority to order his compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The appellants argued that the order had been passed by the Government and not by the Inspector General of Police, who merely acted under the direction of the Government. The Supreme Court found that the order was indeed communicated by the Inspector General of Police on the direction of the Government, and the recommendation of the high-powered Committee was approved by the Home Minister and the Chief Minister. Therefore, the order was passed by the Government of Rajasthan, making it valid.

2. Whether compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules is a punishment:
The respondent argued that the order amounted to punishment within the meaning of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958, and therefore required an opportunity to show cause under Article 311 of the Constitution. The appellants contended that an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) was not a punishment and thus Article 311 did not apply. The Supreme Court held that compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) is not a penalty, as clarified by Note 2 of Rule 244(2) and Explanation (vi) to Rule 14 of the Classification Rules. Therefore, such retirement does not attract the provisions of Article 311.

3. Requirement of submission to the Governor under Rule 31(vii)(a) of the Business Rules:
The High Court had accepted the respondent's contention that all kinds of compulsory retirement must be submitted to the Governor under Rule 31(vii)(a) of the Business Rules. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Rule 31(vii)(a) refers only to compulsory retirement as a penalty, not to retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or under Rule 244(2). The Court noted that the words "compulsory retiring of any officer" in Rule 31(vii)(a) must be read in the context of penalties like dismissal and removal, as provided in Rule 14 of the Classification Rules. Therefore, it was not necessary to submit the papers for compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) to the Governor.

4. Validity of the order of compulsory retirement not being in the form required by Article 166 of the Constitution:
The respondent argued that the order was not in the form required by Article 166 of the Constitution, thus making it invalid. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the order was not in the proper form but stated that a defect of form does not necessarily make an order illegal. The burden was on the Government to show that the order was indeed passed by it. The Government successfully demonstrated this by producing relevant papers showing approval by the Home Minister and the Chief Minister. Hence, the order of retirement was valid despite its defective form.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and validated the compulsory retirement of the respondent under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, as it was not a penalty requiring submission to the Governor and was properly authorized by the Government. No order as to costs was made.