9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the rank of an officiating Superintending Engineer and was posted as Director of Central Designs. In November, 1958 he retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. Shortly, thereafter he was reappointed by the Government as a Professor and Head of the Department of Civil Engineering in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, which post he held for about 16 months. The question of his pension was taken up by the Government in the normal routine and on 29-7-1963, Government informed him that though he was entitled to a superannuation pension of ₹ 423.05 n.p. per month and death-cum-retirement gratuity of ₹ 16, 320/- the Government was pleased to impose a cut of 20% in the pension and ₹ 2, 000/- in the gratuity amount under Rule 6.4 of the Punjab, Civil Services Pension Rules, since, in the opinion of the Government, the service record of Shri Erry was not satisfactory. It is an admitted fact that before this cut was applied Shri Erry had not been furnished the grounds nor had he been given an opportunity to show cause against the-proposed cut.The second case also runs on parallel lines. The officer concerned is Shri Sobhag Rai Mehta. He join ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been reduced from ₹ 175.50 to ₹ 160/- per month and the amount of death-cum-gratuity of ₹ 5, 589/- had been forfeited by the Punjab Government. In this case also it is admitted that Shri Khaushal Singh had not been given any notice to show cause 'why his pension should not be reduced or death-cum-retirement gratuity forfeited.In all these three cases the aggrieved officer filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh. The principal contention was that pensionary benefits, with the right to superannuation pen sion, which, it is admitted, included death-cum-retirement gratuity under the rules, were property to which the officers by reason of their service were entitled as a matter of right. They could not be deprived of any part of that property without notice to show cause why the cut should not be imposed. The contention on behalf of the State was that pensionary benefits were in the nature of a bounty and under rule 6.4 clauses (a) (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Pension Ru les) it was open to the Government to impose a cut, if in the opinion of the Government, the service record of the officers was not thoroughly satisfactory. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, contended that the order of the State Government in applying the cut was an administrative order under rule 6.4 of the Pension Rules and, therefore, the, State Government was not liable to issue a notice to show cause against the proposed cut. It was pointed out that the State Government had in, its possession the Confidential records of the officers, and on a consideration of the same it was open to it to reduce the pension in its discretion. It was alleged in the written statements filed in the, petitions that their official careers were not without blemish, that there were ups and downs in their service and all these matters were considered by the State Government before applying the cut. It was conceded that these officers earned promotions and increments in due course of their service but it was submitted that did not prevent the State Government from applying the cut to the pension if, on a consideration of the official career as a whole, the officers were not entitled to unqualified approbation.Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Pension Rules is as follows: 6. 4(a) The full pension admissible under the rule is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was wrong on the face of it to hold him responsible for the design when, in fact the design was not the sole creation of Shri Erry but also of the two high officers Shri Handa and Shri Gupta who had specifically examined and approved the design. It is the grievance of Shri Erry that while these two officers had retire d and had been given their full pension it was wrong to blame Shri Erry for the defect, if any. Indeed, the High Court could not possibly have undertaken an investigation into the blameworthiness of Shri Erry in the Writ Petition. But it is obvious that the finding of Mr. Justice Dulat that there was a fault in the design and not in the construction was a finding arrived at without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain. In other words. if the defect in the design of t he Syphon was the sole reason for making a cut in the pension, Shri Erry would be justified in his contention that Such a finding would have been appropriate only if his explanation had been obtained by Mr. Justice Dulat in the Course of the enquiry or by the State Government before the cut was imposed.So far as Shri Mehta is concerned the State Government also gave an indication in para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. The latter has pointed out that as early as 6-4-1951 Government had framed rules for the preparation of a ranking list in respect of the selection posts and under the rules no person could get a selection post unless he was fit and his record of service was satisfactory. He contended that the very fact that he got the selection post of Superintending Engineer on 11-3- 1959 showed that he was fit and his record of service was satisfactory.Shri Khaushal Singh started his career as an Agriculture Assistant in 1927 in class III Service and in 1955 was promoted to a class 11 post and appointed the District Agriculture Officer. He was confirmed in that post and also officiated for sometime as the Deputy Director of Agriculture. When the career of an officer is assessed as a whole the fact that an officer, though with some impediments in his long career, has obtained Successive promotions to higher and yet higher posts may well raise the question whether the State Government, at the time of granting him pension which is normally determined by the years of service and the last pay he receives at the end of his career, would be entitled to forfeit rights acquired by length of service on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... courts both in En-land and in this country, (especially after the decision of House of Lords in Ridge v. Baldwi that where a body or authority is characteristically administrative the principle of natural justice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that body or authority affects individual rights of interests. and having regard to the particular situation it would be unfair for the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard. See: State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei Ors.( 1967 (2) SCR 625.) and In re H. K. [An Infant([1967] 2 Q.B.D. 617.)]. In the former case it was observed it page 628 as follows An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fair play. The deciding authority. it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon. He is however under a duty to give the person against whom 'in enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opportunity to correct or to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the well-known rule which courts in England had recognised in the 19th century. In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works([1863] 14 C, 13, N.S, . 180.) the Board, which had, under the Act of 1855, the authority to demolish any building constructed if the owner thereof had failed to give proper notice, was held bound to give the owner an opportunity of being heard before the demolition, It was contended in that case by the Board that their discretion to order demolition was not a judicial discretion. But the court decided unanimously in favour of the owner. Erle C. J. held that the power was subject to a qualification repeatedly recognised that no mean is to be deprived of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard. and that this had been applied to many exercises of power which in common understanding would not be at all a more judicial proceeding than would be the act of the district board in ordering a house to be pulled down. Wills. J. observed: that the rule was of universal application, and founded upon the plainest principles of justice. In the case before us the officers are being deprived of part of their property by applying a cut to the pension. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not be compulsorily retired and 50 % of his pension should not be adjusted towards the amount clue from him on account of the shortage caused by the irregularities. He did not show cause. In the meantime he reached the age of superannuation and the Government passed an order directing that he be retired from service from the date on which had reached superannuation and given a reduced pinion of two-thirds to which he would be ordinarily entitled in view of the irregularities committed by him. One of his contentions was that Article 311(2) applied to his case and, therefore, lie was entitled to a notice before his pension was reduced to two-thirds. To that the answer was that Article 311(2) did not apply to him and. under Article 302 of the Regulations his pension was liable to be reduced Lit Government's discretion. He had known what the charges there against him and what punishment was proposed to be inflicted upon him. Therefore, lie was not in a position to come that his pension was reduced without notice to him.In the result we hold that the three writ petitions were correctly decided by the High Court and the appeals must fail. They are dismissed with costs. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
