SHYAM LAL versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ,THE UNION OF INDIA

1954 March 3o.

26 SUPREME COURT RE'.PORTS

1SHYAM.LAL ..

. ·.~ . •I'

. L THE STATE OF UT1'AR PRADESH 2. THE UNION OF INDIA

[B. K .. MuKHERJEA, S. · R.

DAs, BHAGWATI,

fAG~N"!ADffA DA~ and VENKATARAMA AYYA~ JJ.)

Constitution · of· lndia...:_Article Jll-Compulsory retirement-" Whether amounts to' dismissal or r.emoval within the meaning of the Articly-Civil . Serv1:ce J?.egulations-Article 465-A a,nd Note 1 appended thereto-Interpretation of-Rule 4 of the new Rules pub-lished in 1919-Government of India Act, Section 96-B. · He!/ that Artide 465-A and Note 1 thereto of the Civil Service !{egulatio'ns tel~ting to the retlnng pensions of officers was applicable to the appellant Who was employed in 1923 as member of.'the Indian Service of ·Engineers because Rule 4 of the new Rules published by the Government of India on 15th Novem~ ber, 1919, providing for compulsory retirement of any officer after the con1pletion of 25 years' service was validated and confirmed by section 96-:B-"of the Government of India Act, 1919, which came into force.on 23rd December,. 1919, and the language of Note 1 to Article 465,A published in 1920 clearly indicates that the Govern-ment's right to co!npulsorily retire an officer .was not derived from Note 1 as Note 1 assumed its eXistence aliunde 'and the Govern-ment's right was' derived from new l{ule 4 published on 15th November; 1919. Held also, ·that· coinpuls6ry retirement under the Civil Ser-vices (Classification:, Control and :Appeal) Rules, does not amount to dismissal or ren1oval withiµ the meaning 0£ Article· 311 of the Constitution and therefore does not f:all \Vithin the provisions of the said Article. · ' The word "removal" used synonymously \vith the term "dis-missal" . generally implies that the· Officer is regarded as in some manner blan1e\vorthy) or defiGient. The · action of removal is fouoded on some ground pe.rsonal to the officer and there is levelling of so1ne in1putation or charge against him. But there is no su.ch' ele'ment of ·ch<1;rge qr 'imputat.ion in -the cacse ,of c9mpuls0ry retirement: · In other words a: compulsory· retirement does not in-volve ati.y stlgn1a·or ·implication of ·misbehaviou·r or incapacity.· ·' Dismissal or removal is punishment and involves loss of benefit already earned. The Officer, dismissed· or removed, does not get pension; •Which .he. has earned. On compulsory retirement the Officer \vill be entitled to the pension that he has actually earned and there is no diminution of the accrued benefit.

Rangachari v. Secretary of State (L.R. 64 I.A. 40; A.LR. 1937 P.C. 27) ; Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State (L.R. 64 I.A. 55; A.LR. 1937 P.C. 37) ; I.M. Lat's case (LR. 75 I.A. 225 ; A.LR. 1948

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 27

P.C. 121); Satischandra Anand v. The Union of India (1953 S.C.R. 655 at p. 659) referred to.

C1VIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1953.

Appeal under Article 132(1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 1st October, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 379 of 1953.

N. C. Chatterjee (P. K. Chatterjee, with him) for the appellant.

C. K. Daphtaray Solicitor-General for India, K L. Misra, Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh ( C. P. Lal, with them) for respondent No. 1. C. K. Daphtary, Solictor-General for India (Porus A. Mehta, with him) for respondent No. 2. ,

1954. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DAs J.-This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to the High Court of Allahabad under article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ quashing the order made by the Presi-dent of India on the 17th April, 1953, ordering the com-pulsory retirement of the appellant who had completed 25 years' qualifying service. The High Court by its judgment dated the 1st October, 1953, dismissed the application but, as the case involved substantial question of the interpretation of the Constitution, the High Court granted leave to the appellant to appeal to this Court.

The material facts may be shortly stated as follows : The appellant passed his Civil Engineering degree examination from the Thomason College, Roorkee, in 1922. He stood first in order of merit and carried away the Gold Medal and other prizes awarded to the best student of that year. He was appointed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Service of Engineers as an Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from the 20th October, 1923. The conditions governing the appellant's terms of appointment, pro-motion, leave, pension, etc., will be found recorded in 3-86 S. C. India/59

Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India. Das].

Shyam LO.l v. TM State of Uttar Pradtsh and The -UnioR of India Das].

letter issued from India Office, London, on the 13th February, 1924. copy of that letter is annexed to the petition filed under article 226. He was posted in the United Provinces. In 1944 the appellant was pro-moted to the rank of officiating Superintending Engi-neer. After the attainment of independence by India fresh agreement was entered into by and between the appellant, the Governor of the United ·Provinces .and the Governor-General of India on the 16th September, 1948, confirming the appellant's terms of appointment contained in the letter of the .13th February, 1924. At or about this time the appellant along with several other officers was ·recommended by the Chief Engineer for confirmation as Superintending Engineer. The appellant, ·however, was not confirmed but continued to officiate as Superintending Engineer until the time hereinafter stated. On ·the 4th January, 1950, the Public Works Department of the U. P. Government addressed letter to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Branch, U. P. requesting him to communicate the letter enclosed therewith to the appellant and to ask him to submit as early as possible whatever explana-tion he might desire to give. The enclosed letter called upon the appellant to show ·cause within three weeks why he should not ·be compulsorily retired under the provisions of article 465-A, Civil Service Regulations, as it appeared ( 1) that he had been making systematic and gross overpayments apparently for no other reason than to benefit the contractors concerned and (2) that he had spent large amounts of public money for his own personal convenience and (3) that he had taken recourse ·to devious and unscrupulous methods. No less than ·six instances on Which these charges were based were then set out. The covering letter concluded with the •following ·remarks.:

"Under the rules Government reserVe the fight to compulsorily retire any ·officer whose retention in serviae they consider not to be in the public interest. This js not, therefore, formal enquiry under the. Classifi-cation, Control and Appeal Rules· but before . taking the action ·indicated above Government were pleased to afford ·an opportunity to Shri· Shyam Lil, I.S.E.,

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired."

copy of the letter of the 4th January 1950, to-gether with copy of the enclosure was sent to the appellant with the request that his explanation might be forwarded within the period mentioned by the Government. The appellant submitted his explana-tions which, together with the Chief Engineer's com-ments thereon, were placed before the Union Public Service Commission. The Commission came to the con-clusion that five out of the six charges had been groved and submitted their report accordingly. On the 17th April, 1953, the President, after considering the case and the recommendations of the Commission, decided that the appellant should retire forthwith from service under Note 1 to article 465-A of the Civil Service Re-gulations. Before this order could be served on him the appellant on the 24th April, 1953, filed before the Allahabad High Court petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order made by the President on the 17th April, 1953, be quashed on the ground, inter alia, that the order was illegal and void in that it was made without affording him any oppor-tunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. As already stated, the High Court dismissed the application on the 1st October, 1953. The present appeal is directed against that order of dismissal. The order of the President which is impugned by the appellant shows that action was purported to be taken in regard to the appellant under Note 1 to article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations. Chapter XVIII of . the Civil Service Regulations deals with Conditions of Grarit of Pension. Article 465-A appears m that Chapter under section V the heading of which is "Retiring Pen-sion." There are two notes appended to the article of which the first one is important for our preserit pur-pose. The relevant ·part of article 465-A and Note 1 thereto are set out below :-

"465-A. For officers mentioned in article 349-A, the rule for the grant of retiring pension is as follows :

'Shyam Lal

The State of Ultra Pradesh and The Uni1n of India

Das].

Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India. Dasj.

(1) ................................................... . . .......................................................

(2) retiring pension is also granted to an officer who is required by Government to retire after com-pleting twenty-five years' qualifying service or more. Note 1.-Government retains an absolute right to retire any officer after he has completed twenty-five years' qualifying service without giving any reasons, and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right will not be exercised ex-cept when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of an officer."

Officers of the Indian Service of Engineers are includ-ed amongst the officers mentioned in article 349-A of the Civil Service Regulations.

The contentions urged before us are that the Presi-dent's Order of the 17th April, 1953, is invalid and inoperative for the following reasons:

(i) that article 465-A of the Civil Service Regula-tions is not applicable to or binding on the appellant ;

(ii) that compulsory retirement is nothing but removal from service and the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution apply to the case of compulsory retirement ;

(iii) that Note 1 to article 465-A of the Civil Ser-vice Regulations, in so far as it confers on the Govern-ment an absolute right to retire an officer who has completed twenty-five years' qualifying service without giving any reason, is repugnant to article 311 of the Constitution.

It will be necessary to deal with the above points seriatim.

Re. (i) .-It will be remembered that the appellant was employed by the Secretary of State in Council in October, 1923, that is to say, after the Government of India Act, 1919, came into operation. Sub-section ( 4) of section 96B of that Act provided, for removal of doubts, that all rules in operation at the time of the passing of that Act, whether made by the Secretary of State in Council or by any other authority, relating to

J S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

the Civil Service of the Crown in India, were duly made in accordance with the powers in that behalf and it confirmed the same. But it is urged that as there is noth-ing to show that article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations was in nperation at the time of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919, and that as all that has been shown is only that the article in question was amended and brought up to its present form in 1922 it cannot be said to have been validated by sub-section ( 4) of section 96B. Reference is then made to sub-section (2) of that section which empowered the Secretary of State in Council to make rules for regula-ting the classification of the Civil Services in India, the methods of their recruitment, their conditions of ser-vice, pay and allowances, and discipline and conduct and, by such rules, to delegate the power of making rules to the Governor-General m Council or to local Governments or to authorise the Indian Legislature or local Legislatures to make laws regulating the pub-lic services. It 1s pointed out that sub-section (2) did not empower the Secretary of State in Council to dele-gate the power to make rules concerning pensions to any authority in India. Our attention 1s next drawn to sub-section (3) of section 96B which specially safe-guarded the interests of the civil servants employed by the Secretary of State m Council by providing that their right to pensions and the scale and conditions of pensions should be regulated m accordance with the rules in force at the time of the passing of that Act and that, although such rules might be varied or added to by the Secretary of State in Council, such variations or additions should not adversely affect the pension of any member of the service appointed before the date thereof. It is urged that not only has article 465-A not been shown to have been in force at the time of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919, it has also not been shown to have been made by the Secretary of State in Council. In the premises, it is contended that article 465-A which ts set out in section V of Chapter XVIII of the Civil Service Regulations and deals with retiring pensions and has presumably been made by the Governor-General in Council cannot be

Shyam Lal v. The State of Utlar Pradesh and The Union of India.

Das].

19541 Shyam Lal, v,, The ~state. of· Uttar Pradesh and, Tiu Unia1i. of India. Das].

supporte& as valid rule under sub"sections (2), (3) or (4) of section 96B and can· have no application to the appellant who was appointed by the Secretary of State in Council and• consequently the order of the President made m accordance with Note l to that article is illegal and void.

The above line of reasoning found favour with the High Court but nevertheless the High Court repelled the conclusions sought to be established by it on the ground that rule 7 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules read with rule 26 of those. Rules impressed the stamp of validity upon article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations and made it applicable to the All India Services. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the correctness of the decision of the High Court in so- far as it is founded on construction of rules 7 and 26 of the Civil Services (ClassifiGation, Control and Appeal) Rules which were first made in December, 1920, and were again pub-lished in 1930 with subsequent amendments. While agreemg with learned counsel that there is some force in his contention that the construction put upon rule 7 may not be quite cogent or convincing we do not con-sider it necessary to express any final opinion on that matter, for, in our judgment, the major premise assum: ed by the High Court that Note 1 to article 465-A has no application to the appellant cannot be supported or sustained. It appears that by Resolution No. 1085-E.A. passed on the 15th November, 1919, and published in the Gazette 0£ India on the same date the Government of India, Finance Department, with the approval of the Secretary of State for India, announced certain new rules relating to retiring pensions . of the officers (other than · military officers or members of the ·Indian Civil Service). and the services specified therein. The ·ser-vices so specified included the ·Public W arks Depart~ ment; ... The new rules were, by rule 1, made. to. apply. only. to officers joining the above service~ after . the 29th. August, . · 1919, and ·to those existing officers . who elected. ih writlng to come • under . their provisions. Tlie appellant was emp'!oyed i~ October, 19Z3, and

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS_

consequently these new rules applied to him. The mate-rial part of rule 4 of these new rules was as follows :-"Government will have an absolute right to retire any officer after he. has completed twenty-five years' service, without necessity to give reasons and without any claim for compensation in addition to pension, and in that event ..... ; ........ "

These rules which came into force on their publica-tion in the Official Gazette of the 15th November, 1919, were, therefore, in operation on the 23rd Decem-ber, 1919, when the Government of India Act, 1919, was passed and were accordingly validated and con-firmed by sub-section ( 4) of section 96B of that Act to which reference has already been made. The rules thus confirmed by section 96B( 4) became applicable to the appellant on his employment by the Secretary of State in October, 1923.

In Resolution No. 714-C.S.R. dated the 10th May, 1920, it was announced that with view to the exact s.cope of the new pension rules published in Resolution No. 1085-E.A. dated the 15th November, 1919, being made clear the Government of India intended to pub-lish those rules in the form of amendments to the Civil Service Regulations. Accordingly Resolution No. 1003-C.S.R. dated the 18th June, 1920, along with certain amendments to the Civil Service Regulations were published in the Gazette of India of the 19th June, 1920, for general information. The amendments so published provided for the insertion in the Civil Service Regulations of new article 349-A stating that the rules in certain articles including article 465-A would apply to officers in the services specified therein. The services so specified included the Public Works Department. The amendments also provided for the insertion in the Civil Service Regulations, amongst others, of new rule as article 465-A with two notes appended thereto. Omitting clause (1) and note (2) which are not relevant for our present purpose that article read as follows :

"465-A.-For officers mentioned in ·article 349-A the rule for the grant of retiring pension is as follows :_:_

Shyam Lal

The State of Uttar Pradesh arul The Union of India. Das].

Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Tm Union of India. Das] •.

34. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1) ............................................... . ( 2) retiring pension is also granted to an officer who is required by Government to retire after com-pleting twenty-five years' service or more.

Note 1.-Government retains an absolute right to retire any officer after he has completed twenty-five years' service without giving any reasons and no claim to spei:ial compensation on this account will be entertained." It will be noticed that clause (2) and Note 1 quoted above are word for word the same as c!ause (2) and Note 1 of article 465-A as we find i'< now except that the last sentence in Note 1 m the present rule was not in article 465-A Note 1 when it was published in 1920. It seems that this addition was subsequently made by amendment in 1922 as referred to in the High Court judgment under appeal.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that article 465-A and Note 1 thereto came into force only in June, 1920, that is to say, after the Government of India Act, 1919, had been passed and therefore can-not be said to have been confirmed by section 96B (4) and being pension rule made after the date of that Act but not being rule made by the Secretary of State in Council it cannot under section 96B (3) apply to the appellant who was employed by the Secretary of State. We are unable to accept this argument as sound. As already stated, the new rules were announcea by Reso-lution No. 1085-E. A. passed and published on the 15th November, 1919, and were in force on the 23rd Decem-ber, 1919, when the Government of India Act, 1919, was passed and consequently acquired statutory force by virtue of section 96B ( 4) of that Act. The subse-quent Resolution No. 714-C.S.R. dated the 10th May, 1920, and Resolution No. 1003-C.S.R. referred to above did not and could not affect the validity or for.ce of the new rules announced on the 15th November, 1919. The purpose of publishing the new rules in the form of amendments to the Civil Service Regulations, as Reso-lution No. 714-C.S.R. itself stated expressly, was only to clarify the exact scope of those new rules and not,

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant, to bring them into force for the first time. The new rules came into operation ex proprio vigore on their publication in the official Gazette on the 15th November, 1919, and their subsequent publication for general information in the form of amendment to the Civil Service Regula-tions only served to make their exact scope clear. The real purpose of the incorporation of these rules in the Civil Service Regulations was not to make any new rule at the date of such incorporation but to distribute and post up the rules announced m November, 1919, at appropriate places in the Civil Service Regulations for ready reference. comparison of the language used in Note 1 to article 465-A with that employed in new rule 4 announced by Resolution No. 1085-E.A. dated the 15th November, 1919, will also make it clear beyond doubt that the purpose of Note 1 is not to confer on the Government any new right to compulsorily retire an officer on completion by him of twenty-five years' service but that it is intended to serve as reminder that the Government already has such right which it means to "retain". One "retains" only what one already possesses and the word "retain" is wholly inappropriate for the purpose of conferring fresh right. The last sentence of Note 1 is only an administrative direction as to when the existing right of the Government is to be exercised. Indeed, article 1 m Chapter I of the Civil Service Regulations clearly provides that the regulations therein are intended only to regulate sala-ries, leave, pension and other allowances and that they do not deal otherwise than indirectly with matters rela-ting to recruitment, promotion, official duties, discip-line or the like. In short, the language of Note 1 to article 465-A makes it abundantly clear that the Govern-ment's right to compulsorily retire an officer 1s not derived frorr. Note 1. Note 1 only asssumes its existence aliunde and indicates when that existing right is to be exercised and what consequences are to follow if that right is exer:ised. That right is obviously derived from new rule 4 which was announced by Resolution No. 1085-E.A. on the 15th November, 1919. Being in opera-tion at the date of the passing of the Government of

Shyam Lal v.

The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India.

Das].

Shyam Lal V; T ht State of· Uttar Pradesh and· The Union of lhdiQ. Das];

lhdia Act, 191.9, that rule, by virtue of _ sub-section ( 4) of section 96B of that Act,. became binding on tlie appellant althoµgh he was employed by the Secretary of State for India. We, therefore, agree with the High Court, though. on different grounds, that the first' ques-tion raised by the appellant must be answered against him. It is unfortunate that the Gazette of India noti-fications of the several earlier resolutions referred to above were not made available to the High. Court. Re. (ii) and (iii) .-It will be convenient to deal with these two questions together. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that even assuming that rule 4 announ-ced by. Resolution No. 1085-E.A. and on which Note 1 to article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations was based had, on the passing of the Government of India: Act, 1919, become binding on the appellant, it never-theless became void on the coming into operation of the Constitution of India by reason of its being repug-nant to the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution. The argument 1s that compulsory retirement of an officer was nothing but his removal from service within, the meaning of article 311 and as rule 4 as well as Note 1 to article 465-A of the . Civil Service Regulations sanctioned compulsory retirement without a:ss1gmng· any reason which, in substance, meant without g1vmg him any opportunity to show cause against such action being taken in regard to him, it became repugnant to-article 311 of the Constitution and, therefore, became void. The argument, although plausible and attractive,. was nevertheless rejected by the High Court and we· think it rightly did so. brief study of the history and development of the rule now embodied in artick 311 and consideration of the language of that article· and the relevant rules will amply confirm the. correct-ness of this conclusion. In England the rule was well established from very· early times that public offices were held at the pleasure of the Crown. The English constitutional theory was th.at the King could do no wrong and accordingly the services of civil servant could be terminated 'without assigning any reason and no action ~ould be maintain-ed in the King's Courts for damages for wrongful

dismissal. This principle appears to have been applied even to the servants of the East India Company and certainly to the civil servants after the British Crown took over the territories and the administration · there" of from the East India Company. This state of affairs continued until 1919 when section 96B of the Govern-ment of India Act, 1919, while maintaining that the tenure was during His Majesty's pleasure, introduced minor restriction on this power of dismissal. The relev-ant portion of sub-section (1) of that section was in the terms following :-

"96B. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of rules made thereunder, every person in the civil service of the Crown in India holds office during His Majesty's pleasure, and may be employed in any man-ner required by proper authority within the scope of his duty, but no person in that service may be dismiss-ed by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, and the Secretary of State in Council may (except so far as he may provide by rules • to the contrary) reinstate any person in that service who has been dismissed. ,,The rest of the sub-section need not be quoted. As already stated, sub-section ( 4) of this section validated and confirmed the then existing rules and sub-section (2) gave power to the Secretary of State for India m Council to make rules for regulating the classification of the civil services m India, the methods of their recruitment, their conditions of service, pay _and allow-ances, and discipline and conduct. In exercise of this power the Secretary of State for India in Council fram-ed certain rules in December, 1920, which with subse-quent modifications were published on the 27th May, 1930, as "The Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules." Rule 49 provides : ·

"49. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter · provided, be im-posed upon members of the services1 comprised in. any of the classes (1) to (5) specified in rule 14, namely:-~i}1 Censure . . . . . . . . . ' ,

Shyam L~l v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India.

Das].

1954 Shyam Lal v.

The State of Utt"' Pradesh and The Union of India. Das].

(ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, in-cluding stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iii) Reduction to lower post or time-scale, or to lower stage in time-scale. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders.

( v) Suspension.

(vi) Removal from the civil service of the Crown, which does not disqualify from future employment. (vii) Dismissal from the civil service of the Crown, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. [Explanation.-The termination of employment-( a) of person appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of the appointment and the rules govern-ing the probationary service ; or

(b) of temporary Government servant appointed otherwise than under contract, in accordance with rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 ; or

( c) of person engaged under contract, in accord-ance with the terms his contract does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule or of rule 55].

The relevant portion of rule 55 runs thus :-

"55. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dis-missal, removal or reduction shall be passed on mem-ber of service (other than an order based on facts which had led to his conviction in criminal Court or by Court martial) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself .............................. " . The rest of this rule which lays down the details of procedure to be followed need not be quoted for our present purpose. Under article 353 of the Civil Service Regulations, no pension may be granted to an officer dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

inefficiency, but to officers so dismissed or removed compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration, provided that [ such allowance shall not exceed two-thirds of the pen-sion which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate.

Shyam Lal

[ The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union ef India.

It will be noticed that the rules just referred to con-template and provide for both dismissal and removal from service. As regards pension both dismissal and removal stand on the same footing, namely, that both of them entail loss of pension and even when compas-sionate allowance is granted in either case such allow-ance is much less than the pension that had been earned. The only difference between dismissal and removal is that while dismissal ordinarily disqualifies the officer from future employment, removal does not. It may also be mentioned here that although the power of dis-missal at pleasure was "subject to the provisions of this Act and of the rules made thereunder" the Judicial Committee held in Rangachari v. Secretary ofi State(1) and in Venkatarao v. Secretary of State ([2]) that those open-ing words of section 96B(l) did not qualify the unfet-tered discretion of the Crown to dismiss servant at pleasure and that the remedy of the servant for the violation of the rules was not by law suit but by an appeal of an official or political kind.

Das].

Then came the Government of India Act, 1935. Sec-tion 240 is important for our purpose. The relevant portions of that section were as follows :

"240. (I) Except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is member of civil service of the Crown in India, or holds any civil post under the Crown in India, holds office during His Majesty's pleasure.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed from the service of His Majesty by any authority sub-ordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(3) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given reasonable

dismissed

(1) L.R.64 I.A. 40; A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 27.

(2) L.R. 64 I.A. 55; A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 37.

1954 S~yam Lal v. The State of Ultar "Pradesh and The Union of India. Das].

40 :SUPREME '.COUR!f •REPORTS ['1955] ro11por.tunity of showing . cause .against the action .pro-posed to be taken in regard to him." The rest of the section ·is not material for the present .discussion. In short, sub.,section (1) reiterated the English constitutional theory, sub-section (2) repro-duced the restriction introduced by section 96B ( 1) of the 1919 Act and sub-section (3) gave statutory protec-tion to the rights conferred by rule 55 of the Civil Ser-vices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules but which, prior to this Act of 1935, had been held by the Privy Council in the two last cited cases .to be ineffec-tive against the Crown's plenary .power of dismissal. It will, however, be noticed that in sub-section (3) the word "removed" was not used, although that word occurred in rule 55 and the other rules quoted above. It was, however, held in 1. M. Lat's case(') that remov-al was within section 240(3), which conclusion implies that removal is comprised within dismissal. The posi-tion, therefore, is that both under the rules and accord-ing to the last mentioned decision of the Judicial Committee there is no distinction between .dismissal and removal except that the former disqualifies from future .employment while the latter does not.Finally, we have our new Constitution. Article 310(1) reiterates the constitutional theory of the tenure of office being during the pleamre of the President, the Governor or Rajpramukh as the case may be. Article 311 ( 1) reproduces the provisions of sectiqn 240(2) of the Government of India Act, 1955. Clause (2) of arti-cle 311, leaving out the proviso, runs thus : "(2). No such person aforesaid shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank until he has been given reasonable ·opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him." The word "removal" which is used in the rules is also used in this clause and it may· safely be taken, for reasons stated above, that under the ·Constitution re-moval and dismissal stand on the same footing except as to future employment. In this sense removal is but species of dismissal. Indeed, in our recent decision (1) L.R. 75 I.A. 225; A.LR. 1948'P:C. 121 ...

S.C.R .

. in Satischandra Anand v. The Union of India( [1 ]) it has ·been said that these terms have been used in the same sense in article 311.

Removal, like dismissal, no doubt brings about termination of service but every termination of service does not amount to ·dismissal or removal. reference to the Explanation to rule 49 quoted above will show that several kinds of termination of servJCe do not amount to removal or dismissal. Our recent decision m Satishchandra Anand v. The Union of India (supra) fully supports the conclusion that article 311 does not apply to all cases of termination of service. That was case of contract for temporary service being termi-nated by notice under one of the clauses of the contract itself and fell within clause ( c) of the Explanation to rule 49 and article 311 was held 'by this Court not to have any application to the case. The question then is whether termination of service brought about by compulsory retirement is tantamount to dismissal or removal from service so as to attract the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution. The answer to the question will depend on whether the nature and inci-dents of the action resulting m dismissal or removal are to be found in the action of compulsory retirement. There can be no doubt that removal-I am using the term synonymously with dismissal-generally implies that the officer 1s regarded as in some manner blame-worthy or deficient, that is to say, that he has been guilty of some misconduct or is lacking in ability or capacity or the will to discharge his duties as he should do. The action of removal taken against him m such circumstances is thus founded and justified on some ground personal to the officer. Such grounds, therefore, involve the levelling of some imputation or charge against the officer which may conceivably be contro-verted or explained by the officer. There 1s no such element of charge or imputation in the case of compul-sory retirement. The two requirements for compulsory retirement are that the officer has completed twenty~ five years' service and that it is in the public interest to dispense with his further services. It is true that . (1) [1953] S.C.R. 655 at p. 659.

Shyam Lal

The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India. Das].

S/filam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India. Das].

this power of compulsory retirement may be used when the authority exercising this power cannot substantiate the misconduct which may be the real cause for taking the action but what is important to note 1s that the directions in the last sentence in Note 1 to article 465-A make it abundantly clear that an imputatiori or charge is not in terms made condition for the exercise of the power. In other words, compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity. In the present case there was no doubt some imputa-tion against the appellant which he was called upon to explain but it was made perfectly clear by the letter of the 4th January, 1950, that the Government was not holding any formal enquiry under rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and that before taking action for his compulsory retirement the Government desired to give him an opportunity to show cause why that action should not be taken. In other words, the enquiry was to help the Government to make up its mind as to whether it was in the public interest to dispense with his services. It follows, therefore, that one of the principal tests for deter-mmmg whether termination of service amounts to dismissal or removal is absent in the case of compulsory retirement. Finally, rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules clearly indicate that dis-missal or removal is punishment. This is imposed on an officer as penalty. It involves loss of benefit already earned. The officer dismissed or removed does not get pension which he has earned. He may be granted compassionate allowance but that, under article 353 of the Civil Service Regulations, 1s always less than the pension actually earned and is even less than the pension which he would have got had he re-tired on medical certificate. But an officer who is com-pulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned. On compulsory retirement he will be entitled to the pension etc. that he has actually earned. There is no diminution of the accrued benefit. It is said that compulsory retirement. like dismissal or removal, deprives the officer of the chance of serving

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS-

and getting his pay till he attai~s the age of superan-nuation and thereafter to get an enhanced pension and that is certainly . punishment. It is true that in that wide sense the officer may consider himself punished but there 1s clear distinction between the loss of benefit already earned and the loss of prospect of earn-ing something more. In the first case it is present and certain loss and is certainly punishment but the loss of future prospect is too uncertain, for the officer may die or be otherwise incapacitated froin serving day longer and cannot, therefore, be regarded in thr. eye of the law as punishment. The more important thing is to see whether by compulsory retirement the officer loses the benefit he has earned as he does by dis-missal or removal. The answer 1s clearly in the negative. The second element for determining whether termination of service amounts to dismissal or removal 1s, therefore, also absent m the case of termination of service brought about by compulsory retirement. The foregoing discussion necessarily leads us to the conclusion that compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal and, therefore, does not attract the provisions of article 311 of the Constitu-tion or of rule 55 and that, therefore, the order of the President cannot be challenged on the ground that the appellant had not been afforded full opportunity of showing cause against the action sought to be taken in regard to him. Both the questions under considera-tion must also be answered against the appellant. The result, therefore, 1s that this appeal fails and must stand dismissed. In the circumstances of this. case we make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

1954 Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union qf India. I--Das].