DALIP SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

DALIP SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 278 was not by way of punishment based on a charge or imputation; the appellant was allowed full pension and did not lose benefits already earned. Therefore, the order did not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: Dalip Singh; Respondent: The State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 July 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Former PEPSU High Court, Regular First Appeal No. 11 of 1954
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Removal or Dismissal From Service Under Constitution, Interpretation of Service Rules
Service Law Constitutional Law Compulsory Retirement Removal or Dismissal From Service Under Constitution Interpretation of Service Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dalip Singh

Appellant

The State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Former PEPSU High Court, Regular First Appeal No. 11 of 1954

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compulsory retirement under Rule 278 of Patiala State Regulations amounted to removal or dismissal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether Rule 278 was operative at the relevant time

Ratio Decidendi

Compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 278 was not by way of punishment based on a charge or imputation; the appellant was allowed full pension and did not lose benefits already earned. Therefore, the order did not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Suit rightly dismissed; order of compulsory retirement is not removal from service under Article 311