Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 165 (R) of 1982, decided on 21st November, 1982.

‑‑‑ S. 13 (ii)‑Retirement after completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension‑Order challenged on grounds of mala fides‑Mala fides attributed to one of Deputy Secretaries of Division not a Member of Committee consisting of a joint Secretary and two Deputy Secretaries and decision of retire ment taken by such committee‑Plea of mala fides not raised in Departmental appeal‑Plea in circumstances, held, an afterthought and interference not within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal- Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) S. 4. read with Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 (P. O of 1981), Art. 13 (1).

M. S. Siddiqi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 21st November, 1982.

This appeal has been preferred from order dated 30th July, 1982, and the appellate order dated 23rd August, 1982. By the first order, the competent authority retired the appellant from service after he had completed 25 years of service qualify ing for pension and other benefits, while by the second order, his appeal was rejected.

2. This appeal is incompetent in view of the bar of jurisdiction placed by Article 13(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, but the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of retire ment had been passed mala fide and that such an order being a nullity in the eye of law, can be struck down by the Tribunal in spite of the bar which relates to valid orders only.

3. The appellant's contention is that a Deputy Secretary of the respondent Division was ill‑disposed towards him, because he had, in 1976, brought to the notice of the then Prime Minister certain irregularities of the said Deputy Secretary, for which the appellant was proceeded against, and an order of censure was also passed. In our opinion, this incidence itself does not establish mala fide on the part of the competent authority. The appellant has himself admitted that the decision to retire the appellant was taken by a Committee consisting of a Joint Secretary and two Deputy Secretaries. It is impossible that another Deputy Secretary, who was not of the Committee, should have prevailed upon all the three members of the Committee to get the appellant retired to revenge his personal grudge. In any case, in the departmental appeal preferred to the Minister, the plea of mala fide was not taken, and it is an after‑thought embodied in the present appeal which. cannot be entertained.

4. The result is that we dismiss this appeal in limine for Want of jurisdiction in view of the bar placed by Article 13 (1) of the Provisional) Constitution Order, 1981.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.