TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 allowed, in appeal, by the Division Bench by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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. 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 effici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
