1992 JTR(SC) 673
1993 AIR(SC) 383 ; 1992 AIR(SCW) 3436 ; 1993 1 CurCC(SC) 734 ; 1993 67 FLR 782 ; 1992 Supp JT 728 ; 1993 LIC 415 ; 1993 4 RSJ 593 ; 1992 2 Scale 810 ; 1993 Supp2 SCC 391 ; 1993 SCC(L&S) 559 ; 1994 1 SCT 25 ; 1995 3 SLR 446 ; 1992 2 UJ 688 ; 1993 KHC 694 ; 1992 2 KLT(Online) 1064
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L.M. SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Secretary to the Government, Harijan and Tribal Welfare Dept., Bhubaneswar (Orissa), and another, Appellants
Versus
Nityananda Pati, Respondent.
(A) The Orissa Service Code, Rule 71 governs compulsory retirement of service personnel. The impugned order of premature retirement was challenged on the ground that uncommunicated adverse entries were improperly considered by the Review Committee while recommending the same. The High Court, and subsequently the Administrative Tribunal, examined the service record and held that the adverse entries vitiated the retirement order. The Supreme Court, however, reviewed the finding on the basis of full service record and relevant materials.
(B) No decision to retire prematurely can be based on uncommunicated adverse remarks; all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered; departmental proceedings and suspensions must be fairly evaluated; and an order of premature retirement must be justified having regard to the entire record.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was appointed as Junior Welfare Extension Officer in 1967 and was subjected to multiple departmental enquiries and suspensions spanning over nine years, with substantial sums recovered through deductions. In 1984, the administration invoked Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code for compulsory retirement based on adverse entries, which had been communicated to him at a later stage. The respondent challenged the order, and the Tribunal held that the entries were not communicated in time and thus vitiated the retirement decision.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly held that the uncommunicated adverse entries prejudiced the respondents case and vitiated the order of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court, upon review of the full service record, found the Tribunal unjustified in interfering with the administrative decision, as all relevant facts were considered and the communication defect did not invalidate the process.
Issues:
Whether an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code is sustainable when based on uncommunicated adverse remarks, and whether the High Court/Tribunal was justified in setting aside the administrative order on such grounds.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a review committee considers relevant facts and circumstances along with the service record, and the communication of adverse remarks occurs at a later stage, the order of premature retirement is not vitiated merely due to delayed communication if the decision is not solely predicated on those uncommunicated entries.
Result:
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment setting aside the retirement order is set aside; the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A) The Orissa Service Code, Rule 71 governs compulsory retirement of service personnel. The impugned order of premature retirement was challenged on the ground that uncommunicated adverse entries were improperly considered by the Review Committee while recommending the same. The High Court, and subsequently the Administrative Tribunal, examined the service record and held that the adverse entries vitiated the retirement order. The Supreme Court, however, reviewed the finding on the basis of full service record and relevant materials.
(B) No decision to retire prematurely can be based on uncommunicated adverse remarks; all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered; departmental proceedings and suspensions must be fairly evaluated; and an order of premature retirement must be justified having regard to the entire record.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was appointed as Junior Welfare Extension Officer in 1967 and was subjected to multiple departmental enquiries and suspensions spanning over nine years, with substantial sums recovered through deductions. In 1984, the administration invoked Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code for compulsory retirement based on adverse entries, which had been communicated to him at a later stage. The respondent challenged the order, and the Tribunal held that the entries were not communicated in time and thus vitiated the retirement decision.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly held that the uncommunicated adverse entries prejudiced the respondents case and vitiated the order of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court, upon review of the full service record, found the Tribunal unjustified in interfering with the administrative decision, as all relevant facts were considered and the communication defect did not invalidate the process.
Issues:
Whether an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code is sustainable when based on uncommunicated adverse remarks, and whether the High Court/Tribunal was justified in setting aside the administrative order on such grounds.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a review committee considers relevant facts and circumstances along with the service record, and the communication of adverse remarks occurs at a later stage, the order of premature retirement is not vitiated merely due to delayed communication if the decision is not solely predicated on those uncommunicated entries.
Result:
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment setting aside the retirement order is set aside; the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
A.K.PANDEY, JANARANJAN DAS
JUDGMENT
SHARMA, J.:—The respondent was appointed as Junior Welfare Extension Officer in the Year 1967. He was compulsorily retired under Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code by order dated 25-4-1984, which he challenged by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The case was later transferred to the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and was allowed by the impugned judgment. The State of Orissa has challenged the same in the present case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.
3. According to the case of the appellants the respondent was born on 4-3-1931. The respondent alleged that the correct date of his birth was 4th March, 1934 and that the assumption made by the appellants was erroneous. He raised several arguments in support of his case. The Tribunal went into the question deeply and rejected the case of the respondent. We have examined the impugned judgment and are satisfied with the conclusion of the Tribunal on this point.
4. So far the order to retire the respondent prematurely is concerned, the Tribunal, while rejecting several arguments of the respondent, agreed with him that the Review Committee, which had considered the case of the respondent and recommended his retirement, had taken into consideration certain adverse entries against the respondent communicated to him later. According to it, the adverse entries must be treated not to have been communicated to the respondent at all for the purpose of his early retirement and this has vitiated the order of retirement.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant State has contended that while taking a decision to retire the respondent prematurely all the relevant facts and circumstances were considered, and the decision was not taken solely on the basis of the aforesaid adverse entries. Relying upon the decision in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299, it has been argued that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was not liable to be quashed on the ground that while passing the same certain uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. The learned counsel appears to be right.
6. The learned advocate, representing the respondent, has, besides challenging the correctness of the reported decision, contended that if the entire service record of the respondent is examined along with the other relevant materials, it would be found that the decision taken against the respondent was not called for. We are not in position to agree with him. It appears from the records that the respondent was subjected to several departmental enquiries from time to time and had been placed under suspension for more than nine years and large sums of money were recovered from him by orders made in several proceedings. We have examined the matter thoroughly and we find that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the impugned order of retirement of the respondent. This appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the petition of the respondent originally filed in the High Court and later transferred to the Tribunal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1993 SC 383 = 1993(2) SCC(Supp) 391 = 1992 AIR SCW 3426 = 1992(2) UJ SC 688 = 1992 JT (Supp) SC 728 = 1993(1) CCC 734 = 1995(3) SLR 446 = 1992(2) Scale 810 = 1993 LIC 415 = 1993 (67) FLR 782.
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.