Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by a clerk from the Excise Department of Bihar against the revocation of his retirement on invalid pension and subsequent dismissal. The appellant had been found guilty of six out of seventeen charges in a disciplinary proceeding, leading to his retirement on invalid pension effective July 19, 1961. However, nearly two years later, the State Government revoked this retirement order, claiming it was irregular due to pending departmental proceedings. The appellant challenged this revocation and the dismissal that followed in the Patna High Court, which dismissed his writ petition but granted a certificate to appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal authority of the State Government to revoke the retirement order, concluding that no provision allowed such action once the retirement had become effective. The court emphasized that the term 'compulsory retirement' in the Bihar Service Code referred specifically to retirement upon reaching superannuation age, which did not apply to the appellant's case. The court held that the Excise Commissioner had acted within his authority when he permitted the appellant to retire on medical grounds. Consequently, the revocation of the retirement order and the dismissal were declared null and void. The court allowed the appeal, quashing both the revocation and dismissal orders, and directed the State Government to pay the appellant's legal representatives all due pension arrears and costs of the appeal.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Invalid Pension - Authority to Revoke Retirement - Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, Rule 116 - The State Government's order revoking the retirement of the appellant on invalid pension was held to be without authority of law as no provision allowed such revocation after the order became effective. The dismissal order following the revocation was also declared a nullity. (Paras 231-234) B) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Applicability of Rule 73(f) of Bihar Service Code - The expression 'compulsory retirement' refers to retirement upon attaining superannuation age, which was not applicable in this case as the appellant was retired on medical grounds. The court held that the Excise Commissioner had the discretion to either dismiss or retire the appellant, and having chosen the latter, the subsequent dismissal was unsustainable. (Paras 233-234)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government had the authority to revoke the order of retirement on invalid pension and dismiss the appellant thereafter.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the order of the State Government revoking the retirement and the order of dismissal passed by the Excise Commissioner. The court directed the State Government to pay all arrears of pension due to the appellant's legal representatives from November 1, 1963, until the date of his death, along with costs of the appeal.
Law Points
- Invalid pension
- revocation of retirement
- authority of law
- departmental inquiry
- Bihar Service Code
- Bihar Pension Rules
