http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURYAKANT CHUNILAL SHAH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/12/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, S.P. KURDUKAR.,

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT -------- S. SAGHIR AHMAD J, ----------------- Leave granted The State of Gujarat is in appeal before us  against the  judgment dated 11.2.1998, passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by which the judgment and order dated 17,11.1997 passed by the Single Judge, was set aside and the Writ Petition of the respondent by which he  had  questioned the  validity  of the order dated 21.7.1986, by which he was compulsorily retired from service, was allowed. The respondent was  appointed  as  a  Clerk  in  the office  of Food Controller, Ahmedabad and after about twenty one years of service, he was promoted as an  Assistant  Food Controller  (Class-ll)  in  the  Office  of Food Controller, Ahmedabad.   In  1983,  certain  complaints  were   received against  the  respondent regarding permits for cement having been issued Illegally by him and, Therefore, he  was  placed under suspension on 31.5.1983 and an inquiry by the State C. 1.  D.    (Crime and Railway) was ordered into the matter of issuance of bogus cement permits.  On the receipt of the  G. I.  D.  enquiry report, which prima facie made out a case of issuing  cement permits to bogus institutions which were not "in existence in Ahmedabad, a first information Report under various Sections of the Indian  Penal  Code  read  with  the provisions  of  the  Prevention of Corruption Act, was filed against the respondent  on  23.12.196S.    Another  FIR  was lodged  against the respondent on the same day in respect of offences committed by him for fabricating the  rubber  stamp of the Government ana fabricating bogus permits in favour of equally bogus parties. In the meantime, the respondent made two applications to the appellants for revocation of the suspension order  out  this was not  done.    By  another  order dated 21.7.1983, passed under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rule, i959,  the respondent  was  comulsorily  retired from service in public interest.  It was this order which  was  challenged  by  the respondent in a Writ, Petition before the Gujarat High Court which  was  initially  dismissed by the Single Judge but was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

allowed, in appeal, by the Division Bench  by  the  impugned judgment  dated  11.02.1996 which has compelled the State to approach this Court under Article 136 of the constitution. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before  the  Single Judge, original records including the proceedings dated 9.2. 1988  of  the  Review  Committee  as also the notings of the Secretary, which he had made  after  discussing  the  matter with  the  Chief  Secretary,  were  placed before the Single Judge.  After going through the records, the learned  Single Judge observed as under:-         The  Review  Committee   has   doubted   the         integrity  of  the petitioner and it has been opined         that it is not advisable to continue the  petitioner         in service for further period.  The Review Committee         has  further  opined that looking to the seriousness         of the charges levelled  against  him,  there  is  a         possibility  of  serious  punishment of dismissal of         the petitioner.    The  Review  Committee  has  next         opined  that  in the circumstances if the petitioner         retires at the age of 50 years then such proceedings         cannot be continued further and  serious  punishment         cannot be  inflicted.    It  has further been opined         that the step concerning  to  reduction  of  pension         also cannot  be  taken.    At that point of time the         petitioner was under  suspension  and  it  has  been         taken  by  the  Review Committee that as he is under         suspension and not in actual service,  there  is  no         question  of  damage  to  public and the Government.         So, the Review Committee was of the opinion that the         petitioner should be continued in service so that he         may be dealt with severely for the  alleged  serious         misconduct.   This  note  had been placed before the         Secretary, who had raised a question as  to  whether         the  Government  can  wait  till  the CID inquiry is         over.  The matter was further discussed and  it  has         been  decided  that he should be retired prematurely         and  thereafter  the  cases  against  him  withdrawn         though  with a further note "Provided he does not go         to Court in  issue  of  premature  retirement."  The         matter  has thereafter been discussed with the Chief         Secretary and a decision has been taken that if  the         petitioner  goes  to  the Court against the order of         premature retirement  then  the  cases  against  him         should not be withdrawn.         Admittedly,   against   the  petitioner  two         criminal cases for the offences as punishable  under         the  provisions  of the Prevention of Corruption Act         have been filed.  In one case the final  report  has         been  submitted  by the Police and in the other case         matter is under investigation.  It is  equally  true         that there are serious charges of corruption against         the petitioner.       The   criminal   against   the         petitioner.    The   criminal   liability   of   the         petitioner  is  one  thing  and  his continuation in         service when his integrity is doubtful,  is  another         thing.  In between these two there is another aspect         that  for  the alleged serious charges of corruption         the  petitioner   could   have   been   dealt   with         departmentally  also  and  if the charges are proved         the minimum penalty could and should have  been,  as         held  by  the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the         case of Narayan Dattatraya Ramteen Thakar v.   State         of  Maharashtra and others, reported in 1997 (1) SCC         299, would have been  dismissal  or  removal.    The         order   of   premature   retirement   has  not  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

       challenged by the petitioner on the ground  of  mala         fides.   The  petitioner  has  not  alleged any mala         fides against any of the officers i.e.  the  Members         of  the  Review  committee  as well as the Secretary         concerned, or the Chief Secretary concerned, of  the         chief secretary.         If the integrity of the officer  is  doubtful,  then         his retention in public service cannot be said to be         in  the public interest. There cannot be two opinion         on this question. In such matters it is difficult to         accept that  the  petitioner  has  been  prematurely         retired by way penalty.                 xxx        xxx        xxx         In  the present case as recorded earlier the         proceedings  of  the  Review  Committee  have   been         produced   on  the  record  of  this  Special  Civil         Application by  the   respondents.      The   Review         Committee  has  found  that nothing adverse has been         recorded in  the  C.R.    file  of  the   petitioner         regarding his  integrity.   It has also been noticed         by the said Committee that the petitioner  has  been         promoted  with  effect from 16.5.1981 and therefore,         C.Rs.  of the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are required         to be considered.  The C.Rs.   of  those  two  years         were not   available.    On  reading  the  aforesaid         portion of the report of the Review Committee,  what         I  gather  is  that  it has proceeded on presumption         that whatever service record of the  petitioner  was         available was of the period earlier to 16.5.1981 and         it stood washed off on his getting promotion on that         day.   After  reaching  that  conclusion  the Review         Committee has not bothered to look into the  service         records  of the petitioner for the period earlier to         16.5.1981.........."         The learned Single Judge further observed as         under:-         "At one point of time, I though of  to  sent         the   matter   back   to   the  respondent-State  to         reconsider the case of compulsory retirement of  the         petitioner.  But,  from  the  record I find that the         Review Committee found strong  grounds  of  doubtful         integrity of the petitioner and the review Committee         has  opined that it is not advisable to continue the         petitioner in service for further  period.  However,         the  Review  Committee  has further opined that when         there are serious charges against the petitioner  if         felt   that   there   are   probabilities  that  the         petitioner may be given major penalty  of  dismissal         and  in  case  he  is retired at the age of 50 years         such  disciplinary  proceedings  for  major  penalty         cannot   be  continued  and  no  punishment  can  be         imposed. The Review  Committee  also  observed  that         step  for reduction of pension also cannot be taken.         So, the review Committee was of the opinion that  as         the petitioner’s integrity is doubtful he should not         be allowed to continue in service............."         The  learned  Judge  further  proceeded  to  say  as         under:-         "So, the opinion of the Review  Committee  was  that         the  petitioner, whose integrity is doubtful, should         be  dismissed  from  service.  After  forming   this         opinion  the  Review  Committee has observed that he         should be continued in service under  suspension  so         that enquiry can be held against him and appropriate         major penalty can be imposed on him.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

       The  Report  of  the  Review  Committee  was         placed  for  consideration  before   the   Secretary         concerned  and  the  Chief Secretary and ultimately,         the chief Secretary has opined that  the  petitioner         should be  compulsorily retired.  However, the Chief         Secretary has opined that  in  case  the  petitioner         goes   to   the   Court  challenging  the  order  of         compulsory  retirement,  case  pending  against  him         should not be withdrawn.  In other words, if he does         not  challenge  the  order  of compulsory retirement         case against him may be withdrawn.         From the proceedings of the Review Committee         as  also  the  discussion of the Secretary concerned         and the Chief Secretary, it is clear that the Review         committee   has   formed   an   opinion   that   the         petitioner’s integrity  is  doubtful.  SO far as the         law  on  the  point  of  compulsory  retirement   is         concerned,  it  is  a  consensus  that  in  case  of         employee/officers   of   doubtful    integrity    or         dishonesty  retention of such employee/officer would         not be in public interest.  Not only  this,  but  to         maintain  efficiency  and  honesty  in services such         officer/employee has to be chopped off from service.         It is true, as opined by the Review Committee,  that         such  person  should  not  be allowed to go with all         rewards of pension and other retrial benefits and he         should be dismissed from service............."         It was also observed as under:-         "I may revert back to the facts  of  this  case  and         admittedly   there   were   two  cases  against  the         petitioner  for   offence   punishable   under   the         provisions of  Prevention  of Corruption Act.  It is         true that in one case "A" Summary has been filed and         in the other one charge-sheet  has  been  filed  and         case is  pending  in the Court.  Only question which         now requires consideration of this Court is, whether         on the basis of this material the  review  Committee         and  the  Disciplinary  Authority  could have formed         bona  fide  opinion,  to  compulsorily  retire   the         petitioner or  not.    The contention of the learned         counsel for the petitioner is that on the  basis  of         these  two  criminal cases, the petitioner could not         have been ordered to be retired compulsorily.   But,         in  view  of  the  latest  decision  of  the Hon’ble         Supreme Court this contention may  not  be  of  much         substance and certainly the Review Committee and the         Disciplinary Authority could have formed and opinion         on  the  basis of the material available whether the         integrity of the petitioner is doubtful or not...." The  portions  of  the  judgment of the Single Judge have been extracted above to show that the original  records were  placed  before him, who, after perusing those records, has specifically and categorically referred all the material which existed on that record and which constituted the basis of the opinion of the Review Committee that  the  respondent may  be  retired prematurely, although, what we feel is that on this question,  namely,  on  the  question  of  premature retirement,  the Review Committee itself appeared to be in a dilemma and could not be said to have been consistent on the question of its recommendations: From what has been extracted above, it would be seen that the Review Committee was of the opinion that : (1)There  was no a a verse entry or remarks recorded in the C.R.  Fife of the respondent regarding his integrity, (ii) Respondent was promoted to the higher post on  16th  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

May,  1981  and,  therefore,  the Review Committee wanted to look  to  the  entries  made  subsequent  to  the  date   of promotion,  but  it  noticed that the character roll entries for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were not available. (iii)  There  were  two  First  Information  Reports  lodged against the respondent under various Sections of the  Indian Pena?  Code  and  the  Prevention of Corruption Act.  In one FIR, final report had been submitted, while in the other the charge sheet was filed. (iv) The integrity  of  the  respondent  was  doubtful  and, therefore, he  was not fit to be retained in Govt.  service. But he should be continued in service, so that he  would  be available  for  severe  departmental  punishment  and can be removed from service and dealt with severely for the alleged serious misconduct. These recommendations of the Review  Committee  were placed  before  the  Chief  Secretary  with  a  note  of the Secretary,  who  had  raised  the   question   whether   the Government  could  wait  till  the  CID  inquiry  was  over. Thereafter, the matter was  further  discussed  and  it  was decided to retire the respondent prematurely and to withdraw the  criminal cases against him, "provided he does not go to court on the issue of premature  retirement."  There  was  a subsequent opinion recorded on the file that it could not be said  with  certainly  that  the  respondent would not go to court on the question of premature retirement.   The  matter was, therefore, again discussed with the Chief Secretary and a  decision  was taken that if the respondent approached the court, the criminal cases pending against him would  not  be withdrawn.   It was in these circumstances that the decision to retire the respondent compulsorily, at the age of 52, was taken. This decision was taken under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provides as under:         "Rule 161         ---------         (1)[a] Except as otherwise  provided  in  the  other         clauses   of  this  rule,  the  date  of  compulsory         retirement of a  Government  servant  other  than  a         Class  IV  servant,  is the date on which he attains         the age of 58 years,         Provided --         (i)(Deleted)         (ii)(Deleted)         (iii)He may be retained in service after the date         of  compulsory  retirement  only  with  the previous         sanction of Government on public grounds which  must         be recorded in writing.         [(aa)   Notwithstanding anything contained in clause                 (a) :-         (i)   An appointing Authority shall, if he is of the         opinion  that it is in the public interest so to do,         have the absolute right  to  retire  any  Government         servant  to  whom  clause  (a) applies by giving him         notice of not less than three months in  writing  or         three  months  pay  and  allowance  in  lieu of such         notice:         (1)   if he is in Class I or  Class  II  service  or         post  or  in any unclassified gazetted post, the age         limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which         is below 35 years, on or after the date on which  he         attains the age of 50 years, and         (2)   if he is in any other service or post, the age         limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which         is  below 40 years, on or after the date on which he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

       attains the age of 55 years.         (ii)  any Government servant to whom clause         (a) applies may be giving notice of  not  less  than         three   months,   in   writing   to  the  appointing         authority, retire from service after he has attained         the age of 50 years, if he is in Class I or Class II         service or post or in any unclassified gazetted post         the age limit for  the  purpose  of  recruitment  to         which  is below 35 years and in an other case, after         he has attained the age of 55 years.         Provided  that  it  shall  be  open  to  the         Appointing   Authority  to  withhold  permission  to         retire  to  a  Government  servant  who   is   under         suspension, or against whom Departmental proceedings         are  pending or contemplated and who seeks to retire         under this sub-clause.]         (b)  A Government servant .................." Sub-clause  (aa)  of  Clause  (1) of this Rule gives power to the Appointing Authority  to  retire  a  Government servant  in  public  interest  by  giving  him three months’ notice in writing or three months’s pay in lieu  thereof  at any  time after the date on which he has attained the age of 50 years. What  is  ’public  interest’  was  explained  in the classic decision of this Court in Union of India vs.    Col. J.N.Sinha &  Anr.   (1970) 2 SCC 458 = AIR 1971 SC 40 = 1971 (1) SCR 791.    It  was  pointed  out  that  the  object  of premature retirement of a Govt.  servant was to weed out the inefficient,  corrupt,  dishonest  employees  from the Govt. service.   The  public  interest  in  relation   to   public administration  means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service  while  the  services  of  the dishonest or the corrupt or who are almost dead-wood, are to be dispensed with.  The court observed :         "Compulsory    retirement    involves    no    civil         consequences.   The aforementioned Rule 56(j) is not         intended for taking any  penal  action  against  the         Government servants.   That rule merely embodies one         of the facts of the pleasure  doctrine  embodied  in         Article 310    of   the   constitution.      Various         considerations  may  weigh  with   the   appropriate         authority while exercising the power conferred under         the rule.    In  some cases, the Government may feel         that a particular post may be more usefully held  in         public  interest  by  an officer more competent than         the one who is holding.  It may be that the  officer         who  is  holding the post is not inefficient but the         appropriate  authority  may  prefer  to  have   more         efficient officer.    It  may  further  be  that  in         certain Key posts public interest may require that a         person of undoubted ability and integrity should  be         there.   There  is  no  denying the fact that in all         organisations   and   more    so    in    Government         organisations, there  is good deal of dead wood.  It         is  in  public  interest  to  chop  off  the   same.         Fundamental  Rule  56 (j) holds the interests of the         public.  While a minimum service  is  guaranteed  to         the  Government,  the  Government  is given power to         energies its machinery and make it more efficient by         compulsorily  retiring  those  who  in  its  opinion         should  not be there in public interest........." It         is true that a compulsory  retirement  is  bound  to         have  some  adverse effect on the Government servant         who is compulsorily retired but  then  as  the  rule         provides  that  such  retirements  can  be made only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

       after  the  officer  attains  the  prescribed   age.         Further  a  compulsorily  retired Government servant         does not lose any of the benefits earned by him till         the date of his retirement.  Three months’ notice is         provided so as to  enable  him  to  find  out  other         suitable employment.  In our opinion, the High Court         erred  in  thinking  that  the compulsory retirement         involves civil consequences." This was also the view of this Court in  H.C.  Gargi vs. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 158 = AIR 1987 sc 64. In Gian  Singh  Mann  vs.    High  Court of Punjab & Haryana & Anr.  (1980) 4 SCC 266 = AIR 1980 SC 1894, it  was pointed  out  that  ’the expression ’public interest’ in the context of premature retirement has a well settled  meaning. It   refers   to   cases   where  the  interests  of  public administration  require  the  retirement  of  a   Government servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to  possess  the  standard  of  efficiency,  competency  and utility called for by the Government  service  to  which  he belongs." In  Kailash Chandra Agarwal vs. State of M.P. & Anr. (1987) 3 SCC 513 = AIR 1987 SC 1871, it was pointed out that the order of  compulsory  retirement,  if  taken  in  public interest,  could  not  be  treated as a major punishment and that  Article  311(2)  of  the  Constitution  could  not  be invoked,  as  the  employee  concerned  was no longer fit in public interest to continue in service and,  therefore,  the was compulsorily retired. In Union of India vs.  M.E.  Reddy & Anr.  (1980)  2 SCC 15 = AIR 1980 SC 563, it was pointed out that the object of  compulsory  retirement  was to weed out the dead-wood in order  to  maintain  a  high  standard  of  efficiency   and initiative in   service.    Rule  16(3)  of  the  All  India (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958, empowered the Govt.   to compulsorily retire  officers  of  doubtful  integrity.  The safety value of public interest was the  most  powerful  and the  strongest  safeguard  against  any  abuse  or colorable exercise of power under that rule. A  three Judge Bench of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr vs. Chief District Medical Officer Saripada & Anr. (1992) 2 SCC 299, laid down the following five principles:         (i)An order of compulsory retirement is  not  a         punishment.  It implies no stigma nor any suggestion         of misbehavior.         (ii)The order has to be passed by the government         of  forming  the  opinion  that  it is in the public         interest   to   retire    a    government    servant         compulsorily.  The order is passed on the subjective         satisfaction of the government.         (iii)Principles  of natural justice have no place         in the context of an order of compulsory retirement.         This  does  not  mean  that  judicial  scrutiny   is         excluded altogether.    While the High Court or this         Court would not examine the matter as  an  appellate         court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that         the  order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is         based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary  in         the  sense  that no reasonable person would form the         requisite opinion on the given material;  in  short,         if it is found to be a perverse order.         (iv)The  government (or the Review Committee, as         the case may be) shall have to consider  the  entire         record  of  service  before taking a decision in the         matter of course attaching more importance to record         of and performance during  the  later  years.    The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

       record  to  be so considered would naturally include         the entries in  the  confidential  records/character         rolls, both  favorable and adverse.  If a government         servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding         the adverse remarks such remarks lose  their  sting,         more  so,  if  the  promotion  is  based  upon merit         (selection) and not upon seniority.         (v)An order of  compulsory  retirement  is  not         liable  to  be  quashed  by  a  Court  merely on the         showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse         remarks were also taken into  consideration.    That         circumstance   by   itself  cannot  be  a  basis  of         interference." This  decision was reiterated by another three Judge Bench  of this Court in  Posts & Telegraphs Board & Ors. vs. C.S.N. Murthy (1992) 2 SCC 317, in which it was laid down as under :         "An order of compulsory retirement is not  an  order         of punishment.    F.R.      56(j)   authoresses  the         Government to review the working of its employees at         the end of  their  period  of  service  referred  to         therein  and  to  require the servant to retire from         service, if in its opinion,  public  interest  calls         for such  an  order.    Whether  the  conduct of the         employee is such as to justify such a degree  as  to         require  the  compulsory  retirement of the employee         are primarily for the  Government  to  decide  upon.         The  courts  will not interfere with the exercise of         this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis         of material available on the record."         (emphasis supplied) In  K.  Kandaswamy  vs. Union of India. (1996) 6 SCC 162, this court observed that:-         "While exercising the power under Rule 56(j)         of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate  authority         has  to  weigh  several circumstances in arriving at         the conclusion that  the  employee  requires  to  be         compulsorily retired   in   public  interest.    The         Government is given power to energies its  machinery         by  weeding  out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and         people  of  doubtful   integrity   by   compulsorily         retiring them  for  service.    When the appropriate         authority forms bona fide  opinion  that  compulsory         retirement  of  the  government  employee  is in the         public interest, court would not interfere with  the         order." The  Court,  however, added that the opinion must be based on the material on record otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colorable exercise of power.  It was also  held that  the  decision  to compulsorily retire an employee can, therefore,  be  challenged  on  the  ground  that  requisite opinion  was  based on no evidence or had not been formed or the decision was based on collateral grounds or that it  was an arbitrary decision. In. S.R. Venkataraman vs. Union of India.  (1979)  2 SCC  491, this Court held the order of compulsory retirement as a gross abuse of power as there was nothing on the record to justify and support the order. In Baldeo  Raj Chaddha vs.  Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321, it was held that although the purpose of FR 56  was to  weed  out worthless employees without punitive extremes, if, under the  guise  of  "public  interest",  an  order  of premature retirement is made for any other purpose, it would be  the  surest menace to public interest and the order must fail  for  unreasonableness,  arbitrariness  and  "disguised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

dismissal". Baikuntha Nath’s case (supra) was considered by this Court  in  M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 1998 (6) SC 34 and it was laid down as under:         "Judicial  scrutiny  of any order imposing premature         compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is         either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is  based  on         no evidence.    The  observation  that principles of         natural justice have  no  place  in  the  conext  of         compulsory  retirement  does  not  mean  that if the         version of the delinquent officer  is  necessary  to         reach   the  correct  conclusion  the  same  can  be         obviated on  the  assumption  that  other  materials         alone need be looked into."         It was further observed as under :         "While  viewing  this  case  from the next angle for         judicial scrutiny,  i.e.    want  of   evidence   or         material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that         want  of  any  material  is almost equivalent to the         next situation that form the available materials  no         reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. In order, therefore, to find out whether  any  Govt. servant  has  outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily retired in public  interest  for  maintaining  an  efficient administration,  an objective view of overall performance of that Govt. servant has to be taken before deciding, after he has attained the age of  50  years,  either  to  retain  him further  in  service  or  to  dispense  with his services in public interest, by giving him three months’ notice  or  pay in lieu thereof. The performance  of a Govt.  servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty  of  integrity of a Govt.  servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for  his  compulsory  retirement  is  taken.  It is obvious that if the character roll is studded  with  adverse entries  or  the  overall  categorization of the employee is poor and there is material also  to  cast  doubts  upon  his integrity, such  a  Govt.    servant  cannot  be  said to be efficient.  Efficiency is a bundle  of  sticks  of  personal assets, thickest  of  which is the stick of "Integrity".  It this is missing the whole bundle would disperse.    A  Govt. servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. Purpose  of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the Govt.  servant to mend  his  ways  and  to  improve  his performance.  That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries  so  that  the  Govt.   servant, to whom the adverse entry is  given,  may  have  either  opportunity  to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly  uncalled  for,  or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous  conduct  justified such an entry, to improve his performance. Applying the  principles  laid  down  above  to  the instant  case,  what  comes  out  is  that  in  compulsorily retiring  the  respondent  from  service,  the   authorities themselves  were  uncertain about the action which was to be taken ultimately against him.  In fact, there was hardly any material on the basis of which a  bona  fide  opinion  could have  been  formed  that  it  would be in public interest to retire the  respondent  from  service  compulsorily.     The material  which  was  placed before the Review Committee has already been mentioned above.   To  repeat,  respondent  was promoted  in  1981;  the character roll entries for the next two years were  not  available  or  record;  there  were  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

adverse entries in the respondent’s character roll about his integrity;  he was involved in two criminal cases, in one of which a final report was submitted  while  in  the  other  a charge sheet  was filed.  Although there was no entry in his character roll that the respondent’s integrity was doubtful, the Review Committee, on its own, probably on the  basis  of the  FIRs  lodged against the respondent, formed the opinion that the respondent was a person of doubtful integrity.  The review Committee was constituted to assess the merits of the respondent on the basis of the character  roll  entries  and other relevant material and to recommend whether it would be in  public  interest to compulsorily retire him from service or not.    The   Review   Committee,   after   taking   into consideration  the  character roll entries and noticing that there were no adverse entries and his integrity was,  at  no stage, doubted, proceeded, in excess of its jurisdiction, to form  its  own opinion with regard to respondent’s integrity merely on the basis of the FIRs lodged against him.  Whether the integrity of an employee is doubtful or not, whether  he is  efficient  and honest, is the function of the Appointing Authority or the immediate  superior  of  that  employee  to consider and  assess.   It is not the function of the Review Committee to brand, and that too, off hand, an employee as a person of  doubtful  integrity.     Moreover,   the   Review Committee did  not  recommend compulsory retirement.  It was of the opinion  that  the  respondent  had  committed  grave irregularity and that he must be retained in service so that he may  ultimately be dealt with and punished severely.  The Secretary  and  the  Chief  Secretary,  who  considered  the recommendations  of  the  Review committee, had other ideas. They  thought  that   the   investigation   and   subsequent prosecution  of  the  respondent  would take a long time and that it would be better to  immediately  dispense  with  his services  by  giving  him  the temptation of withdrawing the criminal cases and retiring him compulsorily  from  service, provided he does not approach the court against the order of compulsory retirement.      This   proposal   too   was  not immediately acted upon and it was thought that nobody  could say  whether  the  order  of  compulsory retirement would be challenged by the respondent before the court  or  he  would merely submit to it on the withdrawn.  It was at this stage, that the or the order of compulsory retirement was passed. The  whole exercise described above would, therefor, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which  a  reasonable  opinion  could  be  formed  that   the respondent had  outlived  his utility as a Govt.  Servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead  wood, he   was   compulsorily   retired   merely  because  of  his involvement in two criminal case pertaining to the grant  of permits in  favour  of  take  and  bogus  institutions.  The involvement of a person in a criminal  case  does  not  mean that he  is  guilty.   He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be  found  out  ultimately  by  the court where  the  prosecution  is ultimately conducted.  But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on  the  basis  of his involvement.    We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal  case  would  constitute  relevant material  for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and  the  nature  of  offence allegedly committed by the employee. There being no material before the Review Committee, in as much as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the character   roll  entries  subsequent  to  the  respondent’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

promotion to the post of Asstt.  Food Controller (Class  II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the  respondent  was  a  man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the  respondent was  a  fit  person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the  case,  was  punitive having  been  passed  for  the  collateral  purpose  of  his immediate removal, rather than  in  public  interest.    The Division  Bench,  in  our  opinion, was justified in setting aside the order passed by the  Single  Judge  and  directing reinstatement of the respondent. We  find  no merit in this appeal which is dismissed without any order as to costs.