Natural justice and writ discretion in disputed facts: service orders affecting retirement require notice and fair hearing.

The SC states that disputed facts do not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because the choice to decline complex factual enquiry is a matter of judicial discretion, not absence of jurisdiction. It further holds that an administrative order refixing a government servant's date of birth and causing premature retirement cannot stand unless the person is given notice, disclosure of the material relied on, and a fair opportunity to respond. An order affecting service rights and civil consequences is invalid where natural justice is denied, and the resulting retirement decision was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain and decide disputed questions of fact in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether an administrative order refixing the date of birth of a government servant and bringing about retirement before the normal age of superannuation could be sustained without giving notice and a fair opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain and decide disputed questions of fact in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The availability of writ relief under Article 226 is not barred merely because facts are disputed. The Court held that the power to decline an enquiry into complicated facts is a matter of judicial discretion, not lack of jurisdiction. Where the controversy is capable of being examined on the materials before the Court and does not require elaborate investigation, the High Court may proceed to decide it.

Conclusion: The High Court was not shown to have acted without jurisdiction or improperly in dealing with the factual controversy.

Issue (ii): Whether an administrative order refixing the date of birth of a government servant and bringing about retirement before the normal age of superannuation could be sustained without giving notice and a fair opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: An order that prejudicially affects a person's service rights and civil consequences must conform to the basic rules of natural justice. Even where the authority acts administratively, it must disclose the case against the person, supply the material relied upon, and afford a fair opportunity to meet the adverse material before a decision is taken. Since no proper notice, disclosure of material, or opportunity of hearing was given, the enquiry and the consequent order were held to be invalid. The power to retire a superannuated public servant does not dispense with fair procedure where the date of birth itself is disputed.

Conclusion: The order refixing the date of birth and treating the respondent as retired was invalid for breach of natural justice and was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that State action affecting vested service rights and civil consequences cannot stand unless it is preceded by a fair hearing and disclosure of the material relied upon.

Ratio Decidendi: Any administrative decision that visits a person with civil consequences must be made consistently with natural justice, including notice of the case to be met and a fair opportunity to rebut the material relied upon.

---