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.