DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1960-7-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 28,1960

DALIP SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MODJI LADHUJI VS. K P VASU NAMBEESAN [LAWS(GJH)-1970-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AUTAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1961-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. AKBAR ALI KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-1962-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRASIDH NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1963-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
BAIRAGI RAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1965-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPA RAM GUPTA VS. R K TALWAR [LAWS(ALL)-1969-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. PURSHOTTAM SWARUP JOHARI [LAWS(ALL)-1976-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
JAYATA PRASAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN LAL GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1998-2-114] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD MOMINUDDIN CROSS OBJECTOR [LAWS(APH)-1963-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHAR GURUSIDDAPPA VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(KAR)-1962-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER EASTERN RAILWAY VS. AJOY CHANDRA BAGCHI [LAWS(CAL)-1975-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
I N SAKSENA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1964-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
SOMANATH MISRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-1968-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM DEKA SUDHIR KUMAR DAS PRIYA GUPTA MOTI RAM DEKA TIRATH RAM LAKHANPAL UNION OF INDIA HARI KISHORE RAM CHANDRA LAL RAM DUTTA UPADHYA ONKAR NATH AKHAURIA VS. GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY:UNION OF INDIA:S B TEWARI:PARIMAL GUPTA:PREMCHAND THAKUR:S B TEW [LAWS(SC)-1963-12-26] [REFERRED]
E S VELAYUDHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [LAWS(APH)-1966-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
S P SRIVASTAVA NOW KNOWN AS S PRASANNA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1970-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY VS. J B PURUSHOTTAM [LAWS(MAD)-1963-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA VS. TARUN KUMAR CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-1992-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND PANDYA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
TAKHATRAY SHIVDATRAI MANKAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1969-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. INDER PRAKASH ANAND H C S [LAWS(SC)-1976-5-31] [RELIED ON]
TAKHATRAY SHIVADATTRAY MANKAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1989-5-1] [DISTINGUISHED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MADAN MOHAN NAGAR [LAWS(SC)-1967-1-19] [DISTINGUISHED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHYAM LAL SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-1971-8-37] [RELIED ON]
R S VELAYUDHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-1966-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
K VEERA CHARY VS. HON BLE HIGH COURT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
PARADESI THYAGARAJAN VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1998-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
S C TANTIA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
BATAHARI JENA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1966-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
P C WADHWA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1961-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
MILKHA SINGH BHANDU SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1964-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH BRAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1967-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
GANGARAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1961-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANUGRAH JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1965-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND SANGHI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI VS. K NATARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-184] [REFERRED TO]
PROSANTA KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
Ayodbya Prasad Shrivastava VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1984-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
Ram Narain VS. State [LAWS(MPH)-1964-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE VS. BEANT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1964-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI NAND KISHORE VAID VS. PUNJAB STATE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-1962-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
GURDIAL SINGH VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB, ETC. [LAWS(P&H)-1975-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEVBHAI BOTHABHAI VAGHELA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
B.L. GUPTA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-1980-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
SAHADEV PATNAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY, FOREST AND ANIMAL HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT, BHUBANESWAR [LAWS(ORI)-1974-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MADAN MOHAN NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-1963-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
B. K. GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1975-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-1983-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. H. C. KAUSHAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-1970-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MOHAMMED MOMINUDDIN (CROSS [LAWS(APH)-1962-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Das Gupta, J. - (1.)The appellant Dalip Singh entered the service of the Patiala State in 191 and rose to the rank of Inspector General of Police of the State in June 1946. After the formation of the State of Pepsu he was absorbed in the Police Service of the newly formed State and was appointed and confirmed as Inspector General of Police thereof. While holding that post he proceeded on leave from October, 18, 1949, till August 17, 1950. On August 18, 1950, an order was made by the Rajpramukh of the State in these words:
"His Highness the Rajpramukh is pleased to retire from service Sardar Dalip Singh, Inspector General of Police, Pepsu (on leave) for administrative reasons with effect from the 18tgh August, 1950."
A copy of this order was forwarded to the appellant. Thereupon on August 19, 1950, the appellant wrote to the Chief Secretary of the State stating that by his retirement he would be put to heavy loss, i.e., about Rs. 50,000/- which he would have earned as his pay and allowances etc., during this period and that his pension was also being affected and that this decision of the Government tantamounts to his removal from service. He requested that the Government should let him know the grounds which had impelled the Government to take this decision about his removal. Ultimately on March 30, 1951, the Government mentioned the charges against him on the basis of which the Government had decided to retire him on administrative grounds. After service of notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant brought a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Patiala against the State of Pepsu asking for a declaration that the orders of August 16, 1950 and August 18, 1950, whereby "the plaintiff has been removed from the post of Inspector-General of Police, Pepsu, are unconstitutional, illegal, void, ultra vires and inoperative and that the plaintiff still continues to be in the service of the defendant as Inspector General of Police and is entitled to the arrears of his pay and allowances from August 18, 1950, and is also entitled to continue to draw his pay and allowances till his retirement at the age of superannuation; and a decree for the recovery of Rs. 26,699/-13/- and full costs of this suit and future interest."
(2.)The main plea on which the suit was based was that the order of August 18, 1950, amounted to his removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and the provisions of that article not having been complied with the termination of his service was void and inoperative in law. The respondent State contended that the plaintiff had been retired from service and had not been removed from service and so Art. 311 of the Constitution had no application. On this question the trial Court came to the conclusion that the order compulsorily retiring the plaintiff amounted to his removal within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution and as the requirement of that Article had not been complied with it held that the termination of service effected by that order was void in law. The Court accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the orders of the Government dated August 18, 1950, whereby the plaintiff had been removed from the post of Inspector-General of Police. Pepsu, are unconstitutional, illegal, void and ultra vires and inoperative and that the plaintiff still continued to be in the service of the defendant as Inspector General of Police and is entitled to the arrears of his pay and allowances from August 18, 1950, and is also entitled to continue to draw his pay and allowance till his retirement at the age of superannuation and a decree for the recovery of Rs. 26,699/13/-.
(3.)On appeal by the State the Pepsu High Court disagreeing with the trial court held that the order of compulsory retirement did not amount to removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution and accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.