9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral of the All India Radio, when she was served with an order dated March 26, 1976, retiring her prematurely from service, with immediate effect, on the ground that she had already attained the age of 50 years on April 11, 1972, and the President was of the opinion that her retirement was in the public interest . The appellant made representation on April 6, 1976, but it was rejected on July 1, 1976. She therefore filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under article 226 of the Constitution in which she, inter alia, made a mention of the hostile attitude of one V. D. Vyas who took over as Chairman of the Central Board of Film Censors from her on February 11, 1972. She also made a mention of the adverse remarks made by Vyas in her se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in. the public interest to do so have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. (i) If he is in Class I or Class II service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years. It is also not in dispute that the power under the aforesaid rule had to be exercised in accordance with the criteria and the procedure laid down in office memorandum No. F.33/13/61- Ests (A), dated 23rd June, 1969, of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. It is however the grievance of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh she made an allegation of malice against V. D. Vyas under whom she served for a very short period and got an adverse report, there is nothing on the record to show that Vyas was able to influence the Central Government in making the order of premature retirement dated March 26, 1976. It is not therefore the case of the appellant that there was actual malicious intention on the part of the Government in making the alleged wrongful order of her premature retirement so as to amount to malice in fact. Malice in law IS, however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it as follows in Shearer and another v. Shield,([1914] A.C. 808 at p. 813.) A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the Courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion. This view has been followed in Sedlar v. Sheffield Corporation.([1924] 1 Ch 483.) We are in agreement with this view. It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a nonexisting fact or circumstance. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith; and in actual experience, and as things go, these may well be said to run into one another. The influence of extraneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
