Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order prematurely retiring the appellant from service under Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules was vitiated for want of public-interest justification and abuse of power.
Analysis: The power of compulsory premature retirement under Rule 56(j)(i) is an absolute administrative power, but it must be exercised only for the public interest and on relevant material. If the authority bases its decision on reasons of fact that do not exist, omits relevant material, or acts on collateral considerations, the order is infected by abuse of power and cannot stand. Here, the record disclosed no material supporting the retirement order, and the Government itself was unable to justify it. The challenge therefore succeeded on the ground that the impugned order was not a bona fide exercise of the statutory power for the purpose for which it was conferred.
Conclusion: The premature retirement order was illegal and liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded and the impugned order of premature retirement was quashed, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary power conferred for public interest must be exercised on relevant considerations and for the statutory purpose alone; an order based on non-existent facts, irrelevant material, or collateral purpose is an abuse of power and is liable to be struck down.