DIGVIJAY B MAJMUDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal the important question of law that arises for consideration is whether compulsory retirement on the ground of physical incapacity amounts to removal ?

(2.) The appellant (original plaintiff) was admittedly a permanent employee holding substantive post in the Western Railway. During the tenure of his service in the year 1972 he developed an eye-trouble resulting into detachment of retina of one eye and in another eye he had a cataract. The officers of Railway finding him unfit even for C category service removed him from service by an order of compulsory retirement without holding any inquiry or without affording to the appellant-plaintiff any opportunity to show cause. The question therefore is whether tie plaintiffs compulsory retirement from service amounts to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India or whether the same is in contravention of the principles of natural justice on the basis of the relevant statutory rules which give power to the Railway Administration to remove such person from service.

(3.) This Court has therefore framed the following two substantial questions of law.