Holding

A Senior Superintendent of Police is a competent authority under Rule 12.1 (read with Rule 13.9(2)) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 to order the compulsory retirement of a Sub‑Inspector, and such order is valid.

Summary

The respondent, Manohar Lal, a Sub‑Inspector of Police, was compulsorily retired by an order dated 24 September 1975 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. He filed a suit seeking a declaration that the order was illegal, malafide and violative of natural justice. The trial court partially decreed in his favour, granting arrears of salary, while the appellate court held that the order was invalid because it was made by an officer below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General, who was deemed the appointing authority. The High Court affirmed that view. The Supreme Court, however, held that Rule 12.1 and Rule 13.9(2) expressly empower a Superintendent of Police to make appointments to non‑gazetted ranks and consequently to order compulsory retirement of a Sub‑Inspector, making the order lawful. Accordingly, the State’s appeal was allowed, the order of retirement was upheld, and the decree for payment of arrears was affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the Senior Superintendent of Police had authority to order compulsory retirement of a Sub‑Inspector under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975
Whether the order violated principles of natural justice or was malafide

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 309
Government of India Act, 1935s. Section 241
Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975s. Rule 12.1, s. Rule 13.9(2), s. Rule 2(1), s. Rule 3(1)(a), s. Rule 3(1)(b)

Subjects

compulsory retirementpolice servicePunjab Civil Services Rulesauthority to retirenatural justicepublic interestpremature retirementservice law

Judgment

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
v. A
MANOHAR LAL

· DECEMBER.IO, 1986

[R. S. PATHAK, V. KHALID AND B.C. ,RAY, JJ.] B

J!unjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975; rr. 2(i), 3,
12.l & 13.9(2)-Sub Inspector of Police-Competent Authority to pass
order of compulsory retirement-The Authority to make appointment-
Superintendent of Police.

Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 C
empowers the appropriate authority to retire an employee on the date on
which he completes twenty·five years of qualifying service, or attains fifty
years of age or thereafter, in public interest by priornotice in writing of not less.
than three months. Rule 2(1) designates the officer having powers to make
substantive appointments to the post as the 'appropriate authority'. Rule 12.1 D
categorises Superintendents of Police as the authority competent to make
appointments to the non·gazetted ranks of Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sulr
lnspectors. Rule 13.9(2) empowers Deputy Inspector General of Police to
make substantive promotions to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector in
accordance with r. 13.1.
E
The respondent who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police was
compulsorily retired by an order dated 24th September, 1975 issued by the
Senior Sup~rintendent of Police.·He was earlier suspended from service with

- effect from 5th September, 1974. A suit filed by him for a declaration that the
said order was illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, and against the rules of
natural justice was dismissed by the trial court holding that the impugned F
order was not vitiated by any malice or malafides, having been innocuously
\,-.,__ made in public interest, and decreed the suit in part for the arrears of salary for
A_ the suspension period. Both the State and the respondent preferred appeals.
( ;·he appellate court allc.wing the r"8pondent's appeal, held that the
t order of compulsory retirement was made by an officer who was below the G
rank of Inspector General of Police, the 'appointing authority'. of the
petitioner, ·and that the judgment and decree as regards the payment of
balance of emoluments for the 'period of suspension after the reinstatement
was legal and valid and dismissed the appeal filed by the State.

·The High Court dismissed the second appeal preferred by the State. H

503
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A Allowing the State's appeal by special leave in part, the Court,

HELD: In view of the specific provision made in rule 12.1 of the Punjab
Civil Services (Premature Retirement I Rules, 1975 that the Superintendent of
Police is competent to make the appointment to the non-gazetted ranks of
Suh-Inspectors of Police, the contmtion that only the Deputy Inspector
B General of Police was competent to make the impugned order cannot be '1f
•ustained. [507G)

Rule 12.1 read with rule 13.9( Z) makes it clear and apparent that the
Senior Superintendent of Police was legally competent to make the order of ....,..
compulsory retirement of a Suh-lmpector of Police from service in public
C interest after attaining 50 years of a::e, in accordance with the provisions of
rule 3(1) (a) and (b) of the Rules. The order ofretirement made in the instant -r-
case, :was, therefore, legal and valid. [507H]

The decree of the lower. "ap11ellate court as regards payment of the
D balance of pay for the period of suspension of the respondant is afl"mned.
[508B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURI:>DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2416 of
1981

E From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1981 of the Punjab and
!Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2985 of 1980.

Rajinder Sachar and R.S. Scdhi for the Appellants.

M.K. Ramamurthy, N.K. Agarwala and S. K. Puri for the
F Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAY, J. This appeal by specid leave is against the judgment and decree
G passed in Regular S.A. No. 2868 of 1980 by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana whereby the appeal was d'.smissed.

The respondent, Manohar Lr,] who was at the relevant time working as
Sub-Inspector in the Police Line, Gurdaspur was compulsorily retired by
Order No. 9754-B dated 24.9.19'.'5 issued by Shri M.M. Batra, Senior
H Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, in public interest. The said order of
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANOHAR LAL [RAY, J.] 505

compulsory retirement has been challenged by the respondent by filing a suit A
being case No. 86 of 1977 praying for a declaration that the aforesaid order of
compulsory retirement is illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, against the rules
of natural justice and the plaintiff-respondent shall be deemed to be in service
of the Punjab State to the post of Sub-Inspector till his retirement at the age of
58 years i.e. on 13.2.1986. There is also a prayer for a direction to the
defendent-appellant for payment of the balance of the salary for the period B
from 5.9.1974 to 23.9.1975 i.e the suspension period after deducting therefrom
the subsistence allowance paid by the defendent and also the increment that
had accrued to him under the rules from time to time during that period. This
amount was stated to .be Rs. 3,446 for the said period. The said suit was heard
by the Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur w~o by his order dated 27th January.
1979 held that the impugned order was not passed at the instance of Sardar C
Harjit Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Inspector General of Police nor the same was
vitiated by malice or any malafides. It was further held that the order was made
innocuously by the Senior Superintendent of. Police in public interest in
accordance with the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement)
Rules, 1975. The Subordinate Judge also held that so for as the pay for the
period of suspension is concerned the plaintiff was entitled to have recovery of D
Rs. 3,446 as arrears of pay during the suspension period. The suit was
accordingly decreed in part. Against the said judgment and decree two appeals
were filed, one by the plaintiff-respondent Manohar Lal being CA.
No.169/308of1979 and another by the State of Punjab registered as C.A. No.
170 of 1979 and 12 of 1980. Both these appeals were heard together and were
disposed of by a common judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, E
Gurdaspur. Decreeing the Civil Appeal No.·169/308of1979 it was held that the
order of compulsory retirement was made by an officer namely Senior .
Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur who was below the rank of. Inspector
General of Police who is the appointing authority of the petitioner. It was also
held that the judgment and decree as regards the payment of the balance of
emoluments during the period of suspension after the reinstatement of the F
petitioner, was legal and valid and the said decree was affirmed and the appeal
was allowed decreeing the suit. In that view of the matter the appeal filed by the
State was dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree the State of Punjab
preferred the instant appeal being R.S.A. No. 2868 of 1980 before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed the said appeal and
affirmed the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. Against this G
judgment and decree the present appeal was filed before this Court with an
application for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether
the order of compulsory retireriient r11ade by the Senior Superintendent of
H
506 SUPREME COURT REl''ORTS [1987] I S.C.R.
A
Police, Gurdaspur is illegal and invalid being passed by' an authority lower in
rank than the appointing authority which according to the respondent is the
Deputy Inspector General of Police. It appears that the Government of
Punjab framed rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and these
rules are termed as the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules,
B
1975. In Rule 2(1) the 'Appropriaie Authority' has been defined as meaning
the authority which has power to make substrntive appointments to the post
or service from which the Government employee is required or wants to retire
or any other authority to which it is subordinate.

Rule 3 reads as follows:-
c \.
"3(l)(a) The appropriate authcrity shall, if it is of the opinion
that it is in public interest to do so, have the absolute right, by
giving an employee prior nctice in writing, to retire that
employee on the date on which he completes twenty-five years
D
of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date
thereafter to be specified in tl:e notice.

(b) The period of such notice shall not be less than three
months:

provided that where at least three months' notice is not
given or notice for a period less than three months is given, the
employee shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to amount
of his pay and allowances, at the same rates at which he was
drawing them immediately before the date of retirement for a
F
period of three months or, as the case may be, for the period by
which such notice falls short of three months."

The relevant excerpt of Rule 12.l is quoted herein below:-

G "The following table summarises the directions given.by the
Provincial Government unde·: Clause (b) of Sub-Section (I) of
Section 241 of the Government ofindia Act, 1935, in regard to
the authorities competent to make appointments to the non-
gazetted ranks.
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MANOHAR LAL [RAY, J.] 507

-r . Class of Authority to whom the power The extent of the A
Government of appointment is delegated delegation
servants
Inspectors Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Full powers
Assistant Inspector"General, Govern- subject to rules
ment Railway Police, Assistant governing the B
Inspector-General, Provincial conditions of
Additional Police, (designated as service as defined
Commandant, Provincial Addiiional in Police Rules.
Police), and the Assistant Inspector-
General Police (Traffic).
• ./·-Sergeants, Superintendents of Police Commandants
Sub-Inspectors of P.A.P. vide C.S. No. 155 dated c
-"' and Assistant 2nd June, 1964 and Deputy Superinten-
Sub-Inspectors. dent (Administrative), Government
Railway Police and Assistant Superin-
tendent, Government Railway Police

Rule 13.3(2) also provides that substantive promotions to the rank of Sub-
D
Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be made by the Superintendent of
Police and the Assistant Superintendent, Government Railway Force.

On considering the provisions of the aforesaid rules it is quite clear and
......apparent that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur being the
competent authority to make the appointment to the non-gazetted ranks of E
Sub-Inspectors, is also legally competent to pass the order of compulsory
retirement of the plaintiff respondent in public interest in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 3(l)(a) and (b) of the said rules. It has been tried to be
contended by referring to the provisions of Rule 13.9, Sub-Rule (2) by the
respondent wherein it has been provided that substantive promotion to the
-.,.ank of Assistant Sub-Inspector is to be made by the Deputy Inspector F
General of Police in accordance with the principles prescribed in.Rule 13.l
that the Superintendent of Police is not the competent authority to make the
impugned order. It is only the Deputy Inspector General of Police who is
competent to make the order of compulsory retirerrient in question. This
argument cannot be sustained in view of the specific provisions made in Rule
G
12.1 wherein it has ·been provided that the Superintendent of Police is
competent to make the appointment to the non-gazetted ranks of Sub-
. ~ Inspectors of Police and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. On a reading of
both these provisions of the Rules 12. l and 13.9(2) it is clear and apparentthat
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur is legally competent to make
the impugned order of compulsory retirement of-the plaintiff respondent from
H
service in public interest after his attaining 50 years of age in accordance with
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A the provisions of Rules 3(l)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature
Retirement) Rules, 1975.

In view of the reasons stated hereirbefore we do not find any merit in the
contention made on behalf of the respondent and therefore we allow the
B appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in part in so far
as it affirms the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, setting aside
the order of compulsory retirement. The judgment and decree of the trial court
is hereby affirmed and the decree of the lower appellate court as regards the
payment of Rs. 3,446 being the balance of pay after deducting the subsistence
allowance during the period of suspens on of the respondent from 5.9. 1974
and 23.9.1975 is hereby affirmed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
c
P.S.S. Appeal allowed.