http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF M.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GANEKAR MOTGHARE

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1989

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) KANIA, M.H. KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 248  1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 703  JT 1989  Supl.    345    1989 SCALE  (2)1187

ACT:     Fundamental  Rules: F.R.  56(j)--Civil  servant--Compul- sory  retirement  of--Head of  Department  awarding  adverse remarks in character roll--Screening Committee consisting of Head  of Department and others recommending  compulsory  re- tirement--Order of retiremen t-- Whether hit by doctrine  of bias.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent  was sought to be  retired  compulsorily from service by an order dated August 21, 1984 on  attaining the age of 55 years under Rule 56 of the Fundamental  Rules, pursuant  to  the Screening Committee’s  recommendation.  He challenged  the said order in a writ petition under  Article 226 of the Constitution.     The  High  Court quashed the said order on  the  finding that the participation of the Head of the Department in  the deliberation  of  the Screening Committee had  vitiated  its recommendation,  and  order of the State Government  on  the doctrine of bias, since he had on an earlier occasion award- ed adverse remarks against the respondent. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,     HELD:  1.  ’The presence of Head of  Department  in  the Screening  Committee  did not  vitiate  its  recommendation. Consequently  the  State  Government’s order  could  not  be quashed. [251E]     2.1  The  object  and purpose of  Fundamental  Rules  56 conferring power on the Government to prematurely  terminate the service of a Government servant is to ensure  efficiency in the administration by weeding out dead-wood who may  have outlived their utility. In the instant case, while  exercis- ing  this power the State Government had constituted a  high powered  Screening Committee consisting of senior  officials of  the  State Government and the Head  of  the  Department. [250D-F]     2.2  The  Head of Department bad performed his  duty  in recording _ opinion in the respondent’s character roll as no other  person  was entitled under the rules to  adjudge  re- spondent’s work and conduct. As 249 a  member of the Screening Committee he was performing  duty

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

assigned  to  him under the rules and Government  order  for screening records of the officers. He was the best person to assess  the efficiency and utility of employees  working  in his  department. He had no personal interest in  the  matter and there was no conflict between his personal interest  and his duties as member of the Screening Committee.  Therefore, there  could not be any question of bias or malice  in  law. [250H, 251C, 250F] J.N. Sinha v. Union of India, [1971] 1 SCR 791, referred to.     A.K. Kraipak & Ors. etc. v. Union of India, [1970] 1 SCR 457, distinguished.     3.  Since the respondent had been reinstated in  service after  the  High  Court order and he has  now  retired  from service  on attaining the age of superannuation,  the  State Government  should not take any steps for reducing his  pen- sion by treating him to have retired with effect from August 21, 1984, [251F-G]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4756  of 1989.     From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 465 of 1984. S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. S.K. Gambhir for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N. SINGH, J. Special leave granted.     This  appeal is directed against the order of  the  High Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh, Jabalpur,  Gwalior  Bench  dated 6.9.1985   quashing  the  State  Government’s  order   dated 21.8.1984 pre-maturely retiring the respondent from service.     The  respondent was holding the post of Deputy  Director of  Geology and Mining in the State of Madhya  Pradesh.  The State  Government constituted a committee for screening  the service  roll of its employees for considering the  question of  compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 35  years. The Screening Committee which 250 included  Shri  S.S. Dave, Director of  Geology  and  Mining Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, on examining the service records of the respondent made recommendation to the  Government for his pre-mature retirement.  Pursuant  to the  Screening Committee’s recommendation the State  Govern- ment  by  its order dated 21.8.1984 retired  the  respondent compulsorily  from service under Rule 56 of the  Fundamental Rules.  The respondent challenged the validity of the  State Government’s order by means of a writ petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution before the  High  Court  (Gwalior Bench). The High Court quashed the State Government’s  order on  the finding that the participation of Shri S.S. Dave  in the  deliberation  of the Screening Committee  vitiated  its recommendation  and  also consequently order  of  the  State Government  on the doctrine of bias. The High Court  further held  that since Shri S.S. Dave had on an  earlier  occasion awarded adverse remarks against the respondent he was biased in  law and therefore he was disqualified to be a member  of the Screening Committee and his participation in the Screen- ing Committee rendered his recommendation invalid. The  High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in  A.K. Kraipak & Ors. etc. v. Union of India, [1970] 1 SCR 457.     After hearing learned counsel for the parties at  length we  are  of the opinion that this appeal must  succeed.  The object  and purpose of Fundamental Rule 56 conferring  power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

on the Government to prematurely terminate the service of  a Government  servant is to ensure efficiency in the  adminis- tration  by  weeding out dead-wood officials  who  may  have outlived  their  utility as observed by this Court  in  J.N. Sinha v. Union of India, [1971] 1 SCR 791. While  exercising this  power the State Government constituted a  high-powered Committee  consisting of senior officials of the State  Gov- ernment and S.S. Dave being the Head of Department of Geolo- gy  and Mining was a member of the Screening  Committee.  As Head  of  Department he was the best person  to  assess  the efficiency  and utility of employees working in the  Depart- ment  of Geology and Mining. His presence in  the  Committee was  necessary to have a fair and correct assessment of  the work and conduct of the employees of that Department for the purposes of making recommendations to the Government.  While it is true that as Head of Department he had awarded adverse remarks  to the respondent on an earlier occasion  but  that does not mean that he had any malice against the respondent, in fact no malice had been pleaded by the respondent against S.S. Dave. As Head of Department Dave had performed his duty in recording his opinion in the respondent’s character  roll as  no other person was entitled under the rules to  adjudge his work and 251 conduct.  No doubt bias and malice both vitiate decision  of an authority. But by no stretch of imagination Dave could be held  to  have  been biased against  the  respondent  merely because on an earlier occasion he had in the performance  of his duties awarded an adverse remark to the respondent.     The  High Court committed serious error in holding  that malice in law was writ large on the face of the  proceedings of  the Screening Committee, although no malice in fact  had been  pleaded against him. In coming to that conclusion  the High Court placed reliance of Kraipak’s case. As a member of the  Screening Committee Shri Dave was performing  duty  as- signed  to  him  under the rules and  Government  order  for screening records of the officers. He had no personal inter- est  in  the matter and there was no  conflict  between  his personal interest and his duties as member of the  Screening Committee, therefore there could not be any question of bias or  malice  in  law. In Kraipak’s case an  officer  who  was himself a candidate for selection was a member of the selec- tion committee and selection was held to be vitiated on  the ground  that  there was a conflict  between  that  officer’s personal interest and his duties as he was judge of his  own cause.  The  principles laid down in Kraipak’s case  do  not apply to the facts of the instant case.     We are therefore of the opinion that Dave’s presence  in the  Screening Committee did not vitiate the  recommendation made by the Committee in any manner, consequently the  State Government’s order could not be quashed. The High Court  had no valid reason to hold that the Screening Committee was not properly  constituted  and  that  its  recommendations  were unconstitutional. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the  order of the High Court, and dismiss  the  respondent’s writ petition but we make no order as to costs.     Although we have upheld the State Government’s order but we would like to observe that since the respondent had  been reinstated in service after the High Court order and he  has now retired from service on attaining the age of superannua- tion,  the  State Government should not take any  steps  for reducing  his pension by treating him to have  retired  with effect from 21.8.1984. P.S.S.                                                Appeal allowed.

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

252