Ved Prakash Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4328 of 1987.
Petitioner: Ved Prakash
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4328 of 1987.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & S. RANGANATHAN,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 19, 1987
Head Note:
CIVIL SERVICE
Compulsory Retirement – No allegation of male fides against authorities – Rejection of writ petition by High Court upheld.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The petitioner challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 23rd December, 1985, by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. This special leave petition is directed against rejection of that writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for both sides we wanted to look into the documents to satisfy ourselves as to whether there was sufficient material before the Review Committee and the competent authority for coming to the conclusion that compulsory retirement should be directed. The character roll entries, reports and other materials which were before them while taking the impugned decision have been perused by us. The jurisdiction of the court in a matter of this type is limited and we do not think a case has been made out where the High Court should have interfered with the order. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the High Court, the legal position has been appropriately stated. The High Court has taken note of the fact that there was no allegation of mala fides against the authorities who ultimately took the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The special leave petition, therefore, is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
1. The petitioner challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 23rd December, 1985, by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. This special leave petition is directed against rejection of that writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for both sides we wanted to look into the documents to satisfy ourselves as to whether there was sufficient material before the Review Committee and the competent authority for coming to the conclusion that compulsory retirement should be directed. The character roll entries, reports and other materials which were before them while taking the impugned decision have been perused by us. The jurisdiction of the court in a matter of this type is limited and we do not think a case has been made out where the High Court should have interfered with the order. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the High Court, the legal position has been appropriately stated. The High Court has taken note of the fact that there was no allegation of mala fides against the authorities who ultimately took the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The special leave petition, therefore, is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
