Brij Bihari Lal Agarwal Vs. High Court
of Madhya Pradesh & Ors [1980] INSC 225 (26 November 1980)
PATHAK, R.S.
PATHAK, R.S.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 594 1981 SCR (2) 297 1981
SCC (1) 490
CITATOR INFO :
R 1984 SC 613 (4) R 1987 SC 948 (7) R 1988
SC1388 (26) RF 1992 SC1020 (21)
ACT:
Compulsory retirement-Fundamental Rule 56(3)
of the Madhya Pradesh Shashikya Sewak (Adhiwarshikya Ayu) Sanshodhan
Adhiniyam-Compulsory retirement made on the confidential reports from the early
years of service and also those not communicated at all to the employee, order
of compulsory retirement is invalid-Value of confidential report, further
explained.
HEADNOTE:
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the
Court ^
HELD : (1) The recommendation by the High
Court regarding its satisfaction that the appellant should be compulsorily
retired, and the consequent order of the State Government, acting on that
recommendation is invalid. The copy of an order-sheet dated 24th January, 1978 in Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 1972 containing serious criticism of the manner in
which the appellant had disposed of the sessions case was not communicated to
him at all, although placed on the personal confidential file of the appellant.
Further the two confidential reports made by two successive Chief Justices in
respect of the appellant for overlapping periods ex facie do not agree with
each other. One report dated 24th February, 1978 pertains to the year ending
February, 1978 and contains general observations favourable to the appellant or
other dated 12th July, 1978 pertains to the period 4th November, 1977 to March,
1978-a good part of which period is covered by the first report-and the
detailed evaluation shows that the appellant was an undesirable officer.
[300E-H, 301A-D] (2) The power to compulsory retire a Government servant is a
power which may be exercised in various contingencies.
[299B-C] Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha,
[1971] 1 S.C.R. 791 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam [1978] 1
S.C.R. 521, referred to.
(3) When considering the question of
compulsory retirement, while it is no doubt desirable to make an overall
assessment of the Government servant's record, more than ordinary value should
be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately
preceding such consideration. It is possible that a Government servant may
possess a somewhat erratic record in the early years of service, but with the
passage of time he may have so greatly improved that it would be of advantage
to continue him in service up to the statutory age of superannuation. Whatever
value the confidential reports of earlier years may possess, those pertaining
to the later years are not only of direct relevance but also of utmost
importance. [300C-E] R. L. Butail v. Union of India, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 55;
Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab, [1979] 3 S.C.R. p.518 and Union of India v. M. R. Reddy, [1980] 1 S.C.R. p.736,
followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 3272 of 1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated 12-10-1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Petition No. 227/79.
R.K. Garg, Miss Manisha Gupta and M.S. Gupta
for the Appellant.
K.K. Venugopal, Mrs. A.K. Verma and K.J. John
for Respondent No. 1.
S.K. Gambhir for Respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J.- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upholding an order compulsorily retiring the
appellant from the post of District and Sessions Judge.
The appellant, a member of the judicial
service of Madhya Pradesh, was promoted to the post of District and Sessions
Judge in April. 1969. On 6th October, 1977 an order was made appointing him to
a Selection Grade post. He was thereafter appointed temporarily as Presiding
Judge, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. On 28th September, 1979 the State Government made an order under Fundamental Rule 56(3) of
the M.P. Shashkiya Sewak (Adhiwarshika Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam. 1976
purporting to retire the appellant in the public interest.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the retirement order, but the writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court on 12th October, 1979. Before the High Court the appellant did not dispute that there was power to compulsorily
retire him under Fundamental Rule 56(3) but he contended that there was no
material before the High Court to lead to the conclusion that his retirement
would be in the public interest and he described the order as mala fide and
arbitrary. The High Court noted that the petitioner had attained the age of 55
years and held that his retirement was in accordance with the terms and
conditions of service and in consonance with Fundamental Rule 56, and rejected
the contention that the impugned order was mala fide or arbitrary.
The appellant contends that the High Court
was not justified in relying on adverse confidential reports which had not been
communicated to him and respecting which, therefore, he had no opportunity to
299 make his representation. Now the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
High Court shows that at the time of deciding whether the appellant should be
compulsorily retired the High Court took into account the confidential reports
of the petitioner from the year he entered service. It appears further from the
counter-affidavit that some only of the confidential reports were communicated
to the appellant, the last being for the period ending 31st March, 1966. It does not appear that subsequent confidential reports containing adverse entries
were communicated to the appellant.
The power to compulsorily retire a Government
servant is a power which may be exercised in various contingencies.
Considering a comparable provision, Rule
56(j) of the Fundamental Rules in Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha this Court
observed:
"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 a 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 Rules 56(j) holds the balance between the rights
of the individual government servant and the interests of the public'. While a
minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the government is
given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by
compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public
interest." In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam the Court
said:
"Compulsory retirement under rule 16(3)
is a salutary safeguard in the armoury of the Government for maintenance of the
services in trim and fitness. Rule 16(3) is a constant reminder to the slacker,
the sluggish and the inefficient, not to speak of those who may be dishonest or
unscrupulous by reputation, beyond redemption. At a reason- 300 able point of
service a stage is reached when the Government reserves its undoubted right to
have a second look at the officers whether their retention in employment would
be useful in the public interest. That is the role of rule 16(3). Rule 16(3),
with the instructions, is a warning poster for every Government servant to
conduct himself properly, diligently and efficiently throughout his service
career." The circumstances in which it is necessary to communicate adverse
entries made in confidential reports to the Government servant concerned have
been considered by this Court in R. L. Butail v. Union of India in Gurdial
Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and more recently in Union of India v. M. E.
Reddy. What we would like to add is that when considering the question of
compulsory retirement, while it is no doubt desirable to make an overall
assessment of the Government servant's record, more than ordinary value should
be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately
preceding such consideration. It is possible that a Government servant may
possess a somewhat erratic record in the early years of service, but with the
passage of time he may have so greatly improved that it would be of advantage
to continue him in service up to the statutory age of superannuation. Whatever
value the confidential reports of earlier years may possess, those pertaining
to the later years are not only of direct relevance but also of utmost
importance.
The High Court considered several
confidential reports, and on the impression gathered from them it concluded
that the appellant should be compulsorily retired. The record, however,
includes a copy of an order-sheet dated 24th January, 1978 in Criminal Appeal
No. 1012 of 1972 Bipata v.State of Madhya Pradesh. The order-sheet contains an
order in which while disposing of a criminal appeal a Division Bench of the
High Court has recorded serious criticism of the manner in which the appellant
had disposed of the sessions case. It does not appear that a copy of the
remarks made in the order-sheet, although placed on the personal confidential
file of the appellant, was ever communicated to him.
The record also discloses that two confidential
reports were made by two successive Chief Justices in respect of the appellant
for overlapping periods. One report dated 24th February, 1978 pertains to the
year ending February, 1978 and contains general observations favourable to the
appellant. The other dated 12th July, 1978 pertains 301 to the period 4th
November, 1977 to March, 1978-a good part of which period is covered by the
first report-and the detailed evaluation shows that the appellant was an
undesirable officer. The two reports ex facie do not agree with each other.
This appears to have escaped the attention of the High Court when it considered
the question whether the appellant should be compulsorily retired.
In the circumstances, it seems to us that the
recommendation by the High Court recording its satisfaction that the appellant
should be compulsorily retired, and the consequent order of the State
Government acting on that recommendation, must be regarded as invalid. It will
now be for the High Court to consider the case again and take a fresh decision
on the question whether it should recommend the compulsory retirement of the
appellant, and for the State Government to act on that recommendation if it is
made.
We consider it unnecessary to consider the
further submission of the appellant that his compulsory retirement was not
accompanied by payment of salary for the statutory period of three months.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the
order dated 20th September, 1979 made by the State Government compulsorily
retiring the appellant from service, and the recommendation of the High Court
on which the order is based, are quashed. It is open to the High Court and the
State Government to consider the matter afresh. There is no order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal allowed.
Back
