TMI Blog1970 (8) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiring the 1st respondent compulsorily from government service in exercise of the powers conferred under cl. (j) -of Fundamental Rule 56 with effect from August 14 1969. That order was attacked before the High Court on various grounds. The High Court rejected some of those grounds. It did not find it necessary to decide a few others but accepting the contention of the respondent that in making the order, the appellant -had violated the principles of natural justice, it held that the impugned order is invalid The High Court accordingly issued a writ of certiorari quashing that order. Before us the only contention presented for -our decision was whether the High Court was right in holding that in making the impugned order the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on the advice of the Surveyor General. The 1st respondent was taken into the Survey of India Class I Service under Rule 2 of the aforesaid 1950 Rules as Deputy Superintendent Surveyor with effect from June 1951. Thereafter the President of India in rcise of the powers under the proviso to Art. 309, made on July 1, 1960 the Survey of India Class I (Recruitment) Rules, 1960 for regulating the recruitment of Survey of India Class I Service. The 1st respondent was subsequently promoted firstly as Superintending Surveyor and then as Deputy Director. After sometime he was promoted as Director and lastly as Director (Selection Grade). The last mentioned promotion was made with effect from October 27, 1966. On May 17, 1969, Fundamental Rule 56( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be given three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice provided in the said rule. No reasons are given for compulsorily retiring the 1st respondent. Admittedly no opportunity was given to him to show cause against his compulsory retirement. The failure on the part of the concerned authority to give an opportunity to the 1st respondent to show cause against his compulsory retirement was held by the High Court to have amounted to a contravention of the principles of natural justice. The validity of Fundamental Rule 56(j) was not questioned before the High Court nor before us. Its validity is not open to question in view of the decision of this Court in T. G. Shivacharana Singh and Ors. v. State of Mysore(1). Fundame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned provision the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred / and the effect of the exercise of that power. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule. one of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Dr. Binapani Dei s date of birth was refixed by the government without giving her proper opportunity to show that the enquiry officer s report was not correct. It is under those circumstances this Court held that the order refixing the date of birth was vitiated for failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. Therein the impugned order took away some of the existing rights of the petitioner. In Krapak s case( ), a committee consisting of Chief Conservator of, Forest, Kashmir and others was appointed to recommend names of the officers from Kashmir Forest Service for (1) [1967] 2 S. C. R. 625 (2) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150. being selected for the Indian, Forest Service. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir was one of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
