DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.