State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta

405 A B ### c D E F G ment servant and before that right is prejudicially affected he is entitled to a notice fo show cause against the proposed cut. In the appeal to this Court it was conoeded on behalf of the State government that in view of the decisions <>f this Court in _Deokirwulan_ _PrQS(ld_ v. _The State_ _of_ _Bihar_ _and Othtrs_ [1971) 2 S.C.C. 330 it was no longer open to contend that a pension was a bounty. But it was contended that the order of the State government in applying the cut :was an administrative order under rule 6.4 of the Pension Roles and therefore, the State government was not liable to issue a notice ·1o show cause against the proposed cut. It was pointed out that the Sl1lte government had 'in its po6SCSSion the confidential records of the ollicers and on consideration of the same it was open to it reduce the pension in its discretion. Dismissing the appeals, STATE OF PUNJAB _v._ K. R. ERRY & SOBHAG RAI MEHTA (With Connected Appeal) _September_ 21, 1973 [J. M. SHELAT, D. G. PALEKAR, K. K. MATHEW, S. N. DWIVEDI ANDY. V. CHANDRA.CHUO, JJ.] _P1111jab_ _Pension_ _Rules-R._ _6.4-Natural_ _justice--Oovtrnment imposing_ cut _in_ _pension-Allegation_ _of_ _irregularities while_ _in_ _Service-Requirement_ _of_ _reasonable_ _opportunity_ _of_ _being heard._ Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Pension Rules provides "6.4 (a) The full pen· sion. admissible under the rule is not to be given "" a matter of coune, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service bas not beeen thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. The respondents were employed in the. service of the. appellant SMc. On their retirement the State govmment imposed a cut m thetr pension and in the gratuity amount. It was alleged by the State government that the officers had committed major irregularities and that the records of the officers showed that their career were not altogether satisfactory .. Thereupon the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court contending that pensionary benefit with the right to superannuation pension were property to which the officers by rewon of their service were entitled as a matt.er of right and therefore they could not be deprived of any part of that property without notices to show cause why the cut should not be imposed. The High Court 'luash<ld the orders imposing the cut. It held that the right to superannuation pension was a right vested in the .$overn· H HELD: The State government could not have applied a cut in the pensions !'f the officers without giving them a reasonable opportunity to make their de.fence. Where a body or authority is judicial or where it has. to determtn~. a matter _in~olving rights judicially because of express or u;nphed provisions of prmc1ple~ of natural justice _audi_ _a/teram partem_ •~ph~s. Where a b<?dy. or authority is characteristically administrative the pnnciple of natural 1ustice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of l)lat body or authority ~ffec!-5 in.dividual rights or interests, and having regard to th~ particular SLtu&bon it would be unfair for the body or autho-· rity not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard. [ 4 t3C) 406 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [1973) 2 S.C.R. Ri~ge v. _Baldwin,_ [1964] A.C. 40; _Province_ _of Bombay_ v. _Kusa/das S._ A _Advam_ _&_ _Ors._ (1950] S.C.R. 621 (725); _Board_ _of_ _High_ _School_ _&_ _Inter-_ _mediate Education,_ _U.P._ _Al/aJ,abad_ v. _Ghanshyom Das Gupta and_ _Ors._ [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 36; _Stale_ _of_ _Orissa_ v. _Dr. (Miss) Biapan{ Dei_ _&_ _Ors.,_ [196~} 2 S.C.R. 625; In re. R.K. _(An_ _Infant)_ (19671 2 Q.B.D. 617; ~· _K._ _Kro1pak_ _&_ _Ors._ v. _Union_ _of India_ _&_ _Ors._ [1970] I S.C.R. 457 and _Cooper_ v. _Wandsworth Board_ _of Works_ [1963] 14 C.B.N.S. 180, referred to. ###### . f1. Narasimachar v. The State of Mysore, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 98 I, dis- B tmgu1shed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals :-:os. 18931894 of 1967. Appeals by certificate from the judgment and order· Jated October 25, 1966 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writs Nos. 504 of 1964 and 723 of 1965 and Civil App~a1 No. 735 of 1968. Appeal by certificate from the order dated March 8. i 967 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 66 of 1967. 1'. C. _Mahajan_ and _R._ _N._ _Sachthey,_ for the appellant r in al"I the appeals). _Bhimsena Rao_ and S. _Ramachandran,_ for the respond~nt (in C. A. No. 735/68). ##### c D _B._ _R._ _Agrawala,_ for the respondent (in C. A. No. 1893/67). E Respondent appeared _in_ _person (in_ C. A. No. 1894 "67). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PALEKAR, .!.-These appeals raise a common question 9! law as to whether the State Government is entitled to reduce the F amount of pension and gratuity legally payable to its officers on their superannuation without giving a reason~ble opportunity to the officers to show cause against the proposed reduction. In the first case the officer concerned is Shri K. R. Erry. He joined the Punjab P.W.D .. Irrigation Branch as an Assistant Engi~ neer in 1926. In due course he was posted as a Central Designs Officer and remained attached to the Central Designs Office first in the capacity of Deputy Director from 6-11-1951 to 30-4-1952 and then as an Executive Engineer (Designs) from 1-5-1952 to l-11-1955. He was promoted from P.S.E. Class II to P.S.E. Class I with effect from 22-9-1954 and was confirmed as an Execu G tive Engineer with effect from 12-8-1956. Early in 1958, he was· H promoted to the rank of an officiating Superintending Engineer and wa~ posted as Director of Central Designs. In November. 1958 PUNJAB _v._ K. **ll.** EllllY _(Palekar,_ /.) 407 A he retired from servic.e on reaching the age of superannuation. Shortly, thereafter he was re-appointed by the Government as a Professor and Hi:ad of the Department of Civil Engineering in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, which post he held for about 16 months. The question of his pension was taken up by the Goverrunent in the normal routine and on 29-7-1963, Govem**8** ment informed him that though he was entitled to a superannuation pension of Rs. 423.05 n.p. per month and death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 16,320/- the Government was pleased to impose a . cut of 20% in the pension and Rs. 2,000/- in the gratuity amount under Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, since, - in the opinion of the Government, the service record of Shri Erry . ### c was not satisfactory.· It is an admitted fact that before this cut was - . applied Shri Erry had not been furnished the grounds nor had **h.c** been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed cut. ·,·'. ; ~·····.···· ## .. ..:. - .. The second case also runs on parallel lines. The officer concerned is Shri Sobhag Rai•Mehta. He joined the Punjab Irrigation Departinent as a temporary Engineer in 1939 and was confirmed **D** - . as Assistant Engineer in P.S.E. Class II in 1946. He was promoted to P.S.E. Class I and as an officiating Execu:tive Engineer in 1949. After a few months he was reverted as S.DO. as he was declared unsuitable for the promotion by the Punjab Public Service Commission .. Two years thereafter i.e. in 1951 he was again promoted . . as Officiating Executive Engineer and confirmed as an Executive J;; Engineer with effect from 1-9-1956. Thereafter he was promoted as .an Officiating Superintending Engineer with effect from 12-3-1959. and earned a year's increment. On 12-12-1960 he attained the age of superannuation. As his i)ension papers were .IJClt)inaliz<;d soon thereafter he was allowed to draw anticipatory .pension in,the sum of Rs. 190/- per month and Rs. 6,158/- as •F. · dea'th-cum~retirement gratuity pending final disposal of his case. On . Civil Service Rules, as in the opinion of the Government the service G record of Shri Mehta was not satisfactory. His pension was thus reduced from R,s. 211.35 n.p. to Rs. 179.60 per month. It is admitted that while applying the cut to the pension, no opportunity was given to Shri Mehta to show cause against the proposed cut. - 4· 7 ·1964 Oovernment decided that whereas the pensi9n admissible to him under .the rules was. Rs. 211.3 _5_ n. p. per month along with cleath-cum-retirement gratully of Rs. 8,211/- it was necessary to impose a cut of 15% in his pension under rule 6.4 of the Punjab In the third case the officer concerned was Shri Khaushal Singh. He was appointed as an Agriculture Assistant in the H Punjab Government in J 926. Thereafter, he worked in the Department of Agriculture in various capacities and finally in · 1955 he was promoted to the post of District Agriculture Officer 408 SUPREME COURT llEPOllTS [1973) 2 S.C.ll. which was P.A.S. Class II post. He was confirmed in 1jhe post of A the District Agriculture Officer with effect from 13-1-1958. Shri Khaushal Singh also acted for sometime as the Deputy Director of Agriculture before retiremen~ on 10th November, 1960 on reaching the age of superannuation. After his retirement the Accountant General, Punjab calculated and declared that he was entilled under the rules ~ be paid pension of Rs. 175.50 np. per B month and death-cum-retirement gratuity amounting to Rs. 5,589/-. But on 7-10-1963 he was informed that his pension had been reduced from Rs. 175.50 to Rs. 1601- per month and tlie amount of death-cum-gratuity of Rs. 5,589/- had been forfeited by the Punjab Government. In this case also it is admitted that ###### Shri Khaushal Singh had not been given any notice to show cause c why his pension should not be reduced or death-cum-retirement gratuity forfeited. In all these three cases the aggrieved officer filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh. The principal contention was that pensionary benefits with the right to superannuation pension, which, it is admitied, included death-cum-retire- n ment gratuity under the rules, were property to which the officers by reason of their service were.entitled as a matter of right. They could not be deprived of any part of that property without notice to show cause why the cut should not be imposed. The contention on behalf of the State was that pensionary benefits were in the nature of a bounty and under rule 6.4 clauses (a) & (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Pension Rules) it was opei;i to the Government to impose a c;ut, if in the opinion of the Government, the service record of the officers was not thoroughly satisfactory. It was also contended that the order imposing the cut was an administrative order and the Government was not, therefore, bound to give notice to the officers about the proposed cut. E F The writ petitions of Shri Erry and Shri Mehta were heard together by a full bench of the High Court and were disposed of by a common judgment on October 25, 1966. The High Court held by majority that the right to superannuation pension was a G rig~t ~~ted in the Gove~en~ servant and before that right is pre1ud1c1ally affected he 1s enhtled to a notice to show cause against the proposed c&t. In view of that finding the orders imposing the cut were quashed. The Writ Petition filed by Shri Khaushal Singh came on for hearing before· a single Judge of the High Court on December H 22, 1966. The learned Judge held that the case was covered ·by the decision of the full bench in the above two cases and the only PUNJAB _v._ K. R. ERRY _(Palekar,_ _J.)_ 409 order he could pass was to quash the order by which the State Government had imposed the cut in his pension. The State of Punjab went in appeal to the Division Bench of that court but, :ls was to be expected, that appeal was dismissed _in_ _limini_ on 8-3-1967. The present three appeals are filed by the Staie Government challenging the view' taken by the full bench. Much of the argument which would have been otherwise addressed to us has been cut short by a decision of this Court in _Deokinandan Prasad_ v. _The State of Bihar and Others(')._ It was a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by which the petitioner maintained that denial of pension was an infringement of his fundamental rights under Art,icle 31(1) and Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. This Court held that the right of a Government servant to receive pension is properl;y under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State did not have _the_ power to withhold the same. It was also held 1that fu~ claim to pension was property under Article 19 (1 )( f) and was not saved by subArticle _5_ of Article 19. In corning to this decision a number of cases of the Punjab High Court were referred to and . _the_ view taken by that court in Shri Erry's case, which is now in appeal before us, was affirmed. Mr. Mahajan who appeared before us on behalf of the State conceded that in view of the decision in Deokinandan's case it was no longer open to him to contend that pension was a bounty. # • .. ""'; 1 _!l'J_ _"'!_ Ill! ,,-ir A B #### c D E Mr. Mahajan, however, contended that the order of the State Government in applying the cut was an administrative order under rule 6.4 of the Pension Rules and, therefore, the. State Government was not liable to issue a notice to show cause against the proposed F cut. It was pointed out that the; State Government had in its possession the Confidential records of the officers and on a consideration of t;he same it was open to it to reduce the pension in its discretion. It was alleged in the written statements filed in the petitions that their offi,cial careers were not without blemish, that there were ups and downs in their service and all these G matters were considered by the State Government before applying the cut. It was conceded that these officers earned promotions and increments in due course of their service but it was submitted that did not prevent the State Government from applying the cut to the pension if, on a consideration of the official career as a whole, the officers were not entitled.to unqualified approbation. H Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Pernrion Rules is as follows : "6. 4(a) The full pension admissible under the (I) [1971] (2) .S.C.C .330. 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973)2 S.C.R. rule i~ not to be given as a ::natter of course, or unless tb.e service rendered has been really approved. (b) If •be scrvic• .. • h.~s not been thoroughly satis;.,.;tory, me authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper." . There are five notes appended to this rule. But we are not concerned with the same in dealing with the general principle. A B ###### c D E F Some indication was given in the wri~ten statements filed on behalf of the State suggesting that the careers of the three officers were not thoroughly satisfactory. In the case of Shri Erry it was alleged that he had prepared the design of the Ghaggar Syphon and when the same was constructed in accordance with the design, a defect was discovered to remedy which the Government had to spend an extra amount of rupees seven lakhs. The State Government was of the opinion that the defect was in the design and not the construction. So far as this allegation is concerned Shri Erry has given an answer. Accordingi to him the design for the Syphon was prepared by him under the able supervision and guidance of his superiors viz. Shri Handa who was the Chief Engineer, Bhakra Canals and Shri R. K. Gupta, Chief Engineer, who held charge of the post of Director, Central D~signs. Both these officers had signed the design in token of i~s correctness and approval. Shri Et'ry .himself was not concerned with the later construction in accordance with the design. The construction was entrusted to Shri A. G. Kalha, Superintending Engineer, Bhakra Main Line and his allegation was that it was a constrnctional defect which caused loss to the Government and not the design. The matter was actually investigated by a 'Committee of Enquiry' which consisted of three Chief Engineers presided over by Shri S. D. Khunger, I.S.E. General Manager, Bhakra Dam, and in the view of that Committee the defect was not in the design but in the construction. That finding was questioned by Shri Katha and thereupon the Government set up a high-powered Commission presided over b'y Mr. Justice Dulut. Mr. Ju~tice Dulat held, contrary to the finding of the Committee of Enquiry, that. the damage G to the Ghaggar Syphc>n was due to faulty design and not due to faulty construction. The complaint of Shri Erry is· that in the enquiry before the high-powered Commission of Mr. Justice Du lat he' was not even called to explain how his design was right and the construction was wrong. Moreover, he contended it was wrong on the face of it to hold him responsible for the design H when, in fact t'ie design was not the sole creation of Shri Er~y but also of the two high officers Shri Randa and Shri Gupta who H .H ##### c D F G H PUNJAB V. K. R. ERRY _(Pa/eiwr._ _J.)_ 4 I l had specifically examined and approved ihe design. It is the .grievance of Shri Erry that while ~hese two officers had retired and httd been given their full pension it was wrong to blame Shri Erry for the defect, if any. Indeed, the High Court could not possibly have undertaken an investigation into the blameworthiness of Shri Erry in the Writ Petition. But it is obvious that tlie finuino of Mr. Justice Dulat that there was a fault in the design and not in the construction was a finding arrived at without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to expjaiti. . In other words, if the defect in the design of the Syphon was 'the sole reason for makin~ a cut in the -pension. Shri Erry would be justi~ed in his contention that such a finding would have been appropnate only if his explanation had bee·n obtained by Mr. Justice Dulat in the course of the enquiry or by the State Government before the cut was imposed. So far as Shri Mehta is concerned the State Government also gave an .indication in para 5 of its written statement that Shri Mehta was involved in some olflcial irregularities and these had attracted the comments of the Public Acoounts Committee. We do not know what were the tipdings and whether those findings were arrived at after notice to Shri Mehta . . ~o far as th~ third oflicer namely Khaushal Singh is concerned Gov.;rnment stated in para 4 of its written statement that the State Government had suffered a loss of Rs. 11,399.50 p. on account of irrecoverable fertilizer loss issued by Shri Khaushal Singh to bogus persons and also a further loss of Rs. 12,770/- on account of irregularities committed by the petitioner in the purchase ·of seed in the year 1959. It does not appear that the State Government had instituted any enquiry into these losses with a view to bring home the guilt to Shri Khaushal Singh. The above allegations in respect of all the three officers con ~crned are undoubtedly serious. But they have remained mere allegations. The officers could have been properly charged for their delinquency. This was not done either when they were in service or after they retired. ·were these 11rntters taken into account, as the State Government claims to have done before the imposition of the cut, it would have been fair to have given an opportunity to the officers to put forward their defence before depriving them of a large share in their pensionable benefits which, as we have already seen, are not mere bounty but property to which they were entitled. It was also alleged by the State Government 'in the written statements that apart from the major defaults referred to above, the records of all the three officers showed that their careers were not altogether satisfactory and here and there there were draw 9-L498Sup.Cl/73 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 2 S.C.R. backs in their career. In the case of Shri Erry it was pointed out that he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar for a year in 1953 and in the case of Shri Mehta he had been superseded by !Ji, juniors on a number of occasions. At the same time it cannot be ignored that. in spite of some small set back> here an~ there m their long official career these officers earned promotions and were sele~ted on merit to fill high oflices. Shri Erry started as nn Assistant Engineer in Class 11 service and in due course was promoted as Execufr.·e Engineer in Clas~ I service. At the end of his career he was appointed as a Superintending Engineer, the post being a selection post. Similar is the case with Shri Meht:t. The latter has pointed out that as early as 6-4-1951 Government had framed rules for the preparation of a ranking list in respect of the selection posts and under the rules no person could get a selection post unless h~ was fit and his record of service was satisfactory. He contended that the very fact that he got the selection post of Superintending Engineer on 11-3-1959 showed that he was fit and his record of service was satisfactory. Shri Khaushal Singh started his career as an Agriculture Assistant in 1927 in class III service and in 1955 was promoted to a class II post and appointed the District Agriculture Officer. He was confirmed in that post and also officiated.for sometime as the Deputy Director of Agriculture. When the career of an officer is assessed as a whole the fact that an officer, though with .some impediments in his long career, has obtained successive promotions to higher and yet higher posts may well raise the qucs· tion whether the State Government, at the time of granting him pension which is normally detennined by the years of service and the last pay he receives at the end of his career, would be entitled to forfeit rights acquired by length of service on the ground that faults, which, at the time. were either overlooked or condoned had now become so grave as to justify punishing him by inflicting a severe cut in the 1)ension. It is not necessary for us to deal with this point here except to suggest that this aspect of the case could well have been urged by the oflicers before the Government if notice had been issued to them to .show cause against the proposed cut ai1d the State Government would have had necessarilv to apply its mind to that question. In short it must he conceded that though the State Government may have had some material before it for imposing a penalty by way of :i cut in the pension it had failed to give a reasonable opportunity to the officers to put forward their defence or facts in extenuation before the cut was imposed. The case of _Ridge_ v. _Baldwin(')_ comes to mind in this .connection. Baldwin who was the Chief C'onstahlc of the borough police force was prnsc (ll [1%lJ A.C. 40. B ###### _c_ D E G II ·'I #### ' A ll ###### c D E F G II PUNJAB _V._ K. R. ERRY _(Palekar,_ J.) .J l 3 cutcd on grave charges. Donovan J, the trial Judge made, while acquitting him, some observations about his moral incompetence to afford leadership to the police force. Acting on this severe criticism by a Judge of the High Court the Watch Committee, entitled under Section 191 of the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 to dismiss him on a charge of unfitness, dismissed him from 'crvice. This dismissal practically at the end of his official car~er had the consequence of depriving him of his pension. The House n! Lords held that the order had to be set aside because Baldwin was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself, though the -iatute itself did not require any such opportunity being given. The question for our consideration now is whether the orders imposing a cut in the pension should be set aside for the reason that the officers were not given reasonable opportunity to show c'<Iu>e. The law on the point is ndt in doubt. Where a body or ,wthority is judicial or where it has to determine a matter involving rights judicially because of express or implied provision. the principle of natural justice _a11di_ _alteram partem_ applies. Sec : _Prod nee_ _of_ _Bombay_ v. _K11saldas_ _S._ _Advani_ & _others(')_ and _Uoard_ _of High Sc/zoo/_ & _Intermediate Education,_ _U.P._ _A/!a/wbad_ , .. _Gl11111shram_ _Das_ _Gupta_ _and_ _others(")._ With the proliferation of administrative decisions in the welfare State it is now further recognised by courts both in England and in this country, (especially after the decision of House of Lords in _Ridge_ v. _Bald1rin)_ that where a body or authority is characteristically administrative the principle of natural justice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that body or authority affects individual rights or interests. and having regard to the particular situation it would be •rnfafr for the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonabl_e opportunity to be heard. See: _State_ _of_ _Orissa_ v. _Dr._ _(Miss)_ _BiJJ{IJWni_ _Dei_ _&_ _Ors.(_ _[8 ]_ _)_ and In _re_ _H.K._ _[An_ _Infant(')]._ In the fonner case it was observed at page 628 as follows : "An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be .made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fairplay. The deciding authority, it is true. is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties. and strict complia"nce with the forms of judicial procedure may· not be insisted upon. He is however under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version nr defence and ~n opportunity to correct· o,r to controwrt any evidence in the possession of the authority **111** **r1950J** **S.C.R.** **6:!1** <7~5) <:!I [19~::!1 **Suppl. (3l S.C.R.** **J6.** c.1) **fl967l** **(::!l** **S.C.R.** 6::!5. 1~1 **[19(17]** ~ **Q.B.D.** **617.** HI SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 2 S.C.R. which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet. and the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be pa'Scd is entitled lo a hearing applies alike to judicial tribJnals and bodies of persons invested with autho**rity** **to** **a<ljudicatc** **upon** **111attcrs** **involvipg civil** **consc-** q ucnces. It is one of the fundamental rnks of our constitutional sl!l up that every c1t1zcn is prorected against exercise of arbitrary authority b) the State OI' it> olliccl's. Duty to act judicially would thercfol'e arise !'l'Oll' the very nature of the function intended to be performed; it need not be shown to be super-added. **l** f there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person. duty to act· judicially is implicit in. the exercise of such power.. If the essentials of justice be ignored ~rnd an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a ba.sic concept of the rnle of law and ii_11portance thereof transcends the **:-.ignilic<tnce** **o[** **a** **decisiOn** **in** **any** **particular** **case."'** These observations were made with reference to an authoritv which could be de>cribed a\ characteristically administrative. At page 630 it was observed _:_ "It is true that the order is administrative in character. but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences as already stated, must be made consistently with the ruics of natural justice after informing the first re,pondent ·of the case of· the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence ... This case and the English case in re _H._ _K._ _(A11_ _Infant)_ were ~pcciftcally referred to with approval in a decision of the constitutional bench of this Co•m in _A._ _K. Kraipak_ _&_ On. _etc._ v. _U11io,1_ _nf_ _India_ _&_ _Ors(')._ It is. therefore. clear that the State in the ca>e of these three olliccrs could not have applied a cut in the pension of the officer, without giving them a reasonable opportunity to make their ddencc The rule which declares that even an administrative authority has to act fairly after giving an opportunity to the person whose rights and interests arc affected by its decision is no more than an extension of the well-known rule which courts in England had recognised in the 19th century. Tn _Cooper_ v. _Wandsworth_ Ill (t970J t S.C.R. 457. **A** I' ###### _c_ ll **L** G **H** PUNJAB _v._ K. R. ERRY _(Palekar._ J.) 415 A B ### c D E F H 1954. It is enough to say that this contention is also baseless. Articfo 311 (2) does not deal with the question of pension at all; it deals with three situations. namely (i) djsmissal, (ii) removal, and (iii) reduction in rank. The appellant says that the reduction in pension is equivalent to reduction in rank. All that we ni::ed say is that reduction in rank applies to a case of a 1Jublic servant who is expected to serve after the reduction. It has nothing to do with reduction of pension, which is specifically provided for in Art. ~02 of the Regulations. That article says that if the servic~ has not been thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctionina the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it ctl1inks proper. There is a Note under this article, which says that :he full pension admissible under the Regulations is not to be given as a matter of course but rather to be treated as a matter of distinction. It was under this article that the Government acted w~en it reduced the pensi?n to .two-thirds. Reduction in pension bemg a matter of cl1scret1on with the Government. it cannot therefore be said that it committed any breach of the Regulations _Board_ _of Works(')_ the Board, which had, under the Act of.1855, the authority to demolish any building constructed if the owner thereof had failed to give proper notice, was held bound to give the owner an opportunity of being heard before the demolition, It was contended in that case by the Board that their discretion to order demolition was not a judicial discretion. But the court decided unanimously in favour of the owner. Eric C. J. held that the power was subject to a qualification repeatedly rccbgnised that no man is to be deprived of his property without his having un opportunity of being heard anti that this had been applied "to many exercises of power which in common understanding would not be at all u· more \udicial proccedin~ thnn would be the act of the district bllard in ordering u house tll be pulled clown." Wllles J. ob~ervccJ : "that the rule wns ()f universal upplicntion, 11nd founded itp()n tho~ pluinest principles of iusticc." In the case be· fore us the officers u1·c bein~ deprived ()f purt tif their property by applyinp 11 cut to the pension. Therefote, it wus quite csscntinl in all fairness and elementary justice thnt th.zy should huve been given reasonable opportunity to show cause n,:rninst the proposed action. Reference was made on behalt of the State to _M._ _Narasimha-_ _char_ r. _The State_ _of_ _Mysore(')_ and particularly the following observations at page 889. "Next the appellant contends that as his pension has been rc.duced to two-thirds, he was entitled to notice in view of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Comtitution. before the Government decided to inflict ·that punishment on him and that this was not done in the notice dated December 30, _..., ·---- - --.-(!) [186.1] 14C.B.N,S,.180. (2l .[19601 iS.C.R. 9~1. 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973} _2_ S.C.R. in reducing the pension of the appellant." Particular reference was made to the last two or three sentences in the above obsen'ations for the contention that payment of pension was a matter of discretion with the Government. It is enough to say that the question did not arise in the case as to whether pension is bountt) or property. In that case the appellant M. Narasimhachar had been charged in respect of seven irregularities committed by him when he held the post. An enquiry was held and six of the irregulnrities were found proved. A final notice was served on ilirn to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired and 50% of his pension should not be adjusted towards the amount due from him on account of the shortage caused by the irregula· rities. He did not show cause. 1 n the meantime he reached the age of superannuation and the Government passed an onl~r directing that he be retired from service from the date on "' hicl1 he had reached superannuation and given a reduced pemion of two-thirds to which he would be ordinarily entitled in view of the irregularities committed by hillJ. One of his contentions was that Article 31 l (2) applied to his case and, therefore, he was entitled to a notice before his pension was reduced to two-thirds. To that the answer was that Article 311 _(2)_ did not apply to him ancl under Article 302 of the Regulations his pension was liable to be reduced at Government's discretion. He had known what the charges were against him and what punishment was proposed to be. intlictcd upon him. Therefore, he was not in a position to complain that his pension was reduced without notice to him. In the result we hold· that the three \~rit petitions were correctly decided by the High Court and the appeals must fail. The-. are dismissed with costs. K,B.N. _**Appeals**_ _**tlis111issetl.**_ 8 #### c 0