Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JANGIR KAUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1993
BENCH:
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Notice was given for final disposal of the matter at
this stage. Leave granted. Both sides have been heard on
merits.
3.The respondent was employed as a Technician in the Post
and Telegraph Department of the Union of India. While
working in that capacity, the respondent assaulted his
superiors including an Engineering Supervisor for which he
was prosecuted. The respondent was convicted of the offence
punishable under Section 332 IPC and the conviction was
maintained up to the High Court. Thereafter, the respondent
was compulsorily retired by an order dated 10-5-1982 passed
by the Divisional Engineer (Phones), Varanasi after
+ Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7611 of 1993
397
giving him a show-cause notice and the requisite
opportunity. The respondent has been paid the retiral
benefits on his compulsory retirement.
4.The respondent challenged his compulsory retirement by
filing a suit in the Court of City Munsiff, Varanasi which
was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench. By the impugned order dated 3-9-1992, the
transferred case has been allowed and the order of
compulsory retirement of the respondent has been quashed.
However, the tribunal has not awarded back wages to the
respondent. The respondent had preferred a special leave
petition challenging the tribunal’s order refusing the back
wages to him but that SLP has already been dismissed. This
appeal by special leave is by the Union of India against the
tribunal’s order quashing the compulsory retirement of the
respondent.
5.The undisputed facts of this case are sufficient to
indicate that there can be no ground for interfering with
the compulsory retirement of the respondent who appears to
have been dealt with lightly notwithstanding his conviction
under Section 332 IPC for assaulting his superior officers.
The compulsory retirement made in these circumstances
together with grant of all retiral benefits was the least
action which could have been taken against the respondent.
The tribunal clearly misunderstood the scope of its power in
a case like this and clearly erred in interfering with the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
order of compulsory retirement on grounds which, in our
opinion, were not available to it. The tribunal’s order
has, therefore, to be set aside, insofar as it quashes the
order of compulsory retirement of the respondent.
6.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order of the tribunal to the extent indicated is set aside
resulting in dismissal of the respondent’s transferred suit
disposed of by the tribunal. No costs.