1986 JTR(SC) 283
1987 AIR(SC) 65 ; 1987 AllCJ 271 ; 1986 2 CLR 408 ; 1986 2 CurCC(SC) 1063 ; 1986 53 FLR 584 ; 1986 JT 356 ; 1986 2 JT 356 ; 1987 LIC 21 ; 1987 1 LLJ 102 ; 1986 2 LLN 762 ; 1986 2 Scale 380 ; 1986 4 SCC 158 ; 1986 SCC(L&S) 738 ; 1986 3 SLR 57 ; 1986 2 UJ 558 ; 1986 KHC 660
A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 3035 of 1986, D/-1-9-1986.
H. C. Gargi, Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana, Respondent.
Act
Referred
:CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES RULES : R.325(d)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.309
PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES : R.3(2)(5)(d)
(A) The impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed under Rule 3-25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules read with the Central Civil Services Rules and the Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 309. The State Government purported to exercise the power of compulsory retirement in public interest, invoking a quasi-judicial power subject to the safeguards under Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, where the legality of such action depends on a finding that it is in public interest and is not arbitrary. The rules contemplate retention of officers beyond age of superannuation based on good service record, and any adverse finding must be based on relevant material concerning integrity or performance, not merely on average or below average annual assessments.
(B) The core legal principles are that (i) power of compulsory retirement under Rule 3-25(d) must be exercised in public interest and not arbitrarily; (ii) the concerned authority must form a bona fide opinion supported by relevant material; (iii) past performance and prior retention decisions create an expectation of fairness; and (iv) isolated adverse entries not reflecting on integrity cannot justify overriding good service record.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer in Haryana with 35 years of service, was retained till age 55 on two prior review committee reports based on uniformly good service record from 1964-65 to 1981-82. Despite a pending representation against adverse entries, the State Government issued an impugned order of compulsory retirement at age 57 under Rule 3-25(d), relying on two adverse entries by the Excise & Taxation Commissioner that did not pertain to integrity. The High Court was contested on the ground that the order was in public interest.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the adverse entries reflected average and below average performance and did not show any lack of integrity. There was no material for the State Government to form an opinion that compulsory retirement was in public interest. The impugned order was therefore arbitrary and not supported by relevant material, violating principles of natural justice and Article 14.
Issues:
Whether the State Government had sufficient material to form a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement was in public interest; whether the adverse entries pertaining to performance alone justified overriding a record of good service; whether the procedure followed was fair and non-arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi:
A compulsory retirement order under Rule 3-25(d) under the Punjab Civil Services Rules is invalid if it is not in public interest and is based on irrelevant or insufficient material, particularly where the officer has a consistently good service record and the adverse findings relate only to performance and not integrity; such an order violates Article 14 and is arbitrary.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and the appellant is treated as having retired on attaining the normal age of superannuation on April 30, 1986, with entitlement to pensionary benefits.
(A) The impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed under Rule 3-25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules read with the Central Civil Services Rules and the Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 309. The State Government purported to exercise the power of compulsory retirement in public interest, invoking a quasi-judicial power subject to the safeguards under Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, where the legality of such action depends on a finding that it is in public interest and is not arbitrary. The rules contemplate retention of officers beyond age of superannuation based on good service record, and any adverse finding must be based on relevant material concerning integrity or performance, not merely on average or below average annual assessments.
(B) The core legal principles are that (i) power of compulsory retirement under Rule 3-25(d) must be exercised in public interest and not arbitrarily; (ii) the concerned authority must form a bona fide opinion supported by relevant material; (iii) past performance and prior retention decisions create an expectation of fairness; and (iv) isolated adverse entries not reflecting on integrity cannot justify overriding good service record.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer in Haryana with 35 years of service, was retained till age 55 on two prior review committee reports based on uniformly good service record from 1964-65 to 1981-82. Despite a pending representation against adverse entries, the State Government issued an impugned order of compulsory retirement at age 57 under Rule 3-25(d), relying on two adverse entries by the Excise & Taxation Commissioner that did not pertain to integrity. The High Court was contested on the ground that the order was in public interest.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the adverse entries reflected average and below average performance and did not show any lack of integrity. There was no material for the State Government to form an opinion that compulsory retirement was in public interest. The impugned order was therefore arbitrary and not supported by relevant material, violating principles of natural justice and Article 14.
Issues:
Whether the State Government had sufficient material to form a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement was in public interest; whether the adverse entries pertaining to performance alone justified overriding a record of good service; whether the procedure followed was fair and non-arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi:
A compulsory retirement order under Rule 3-25(d) under the Punjab Civil Services Rules is invalid if it is not in public interest and is based on irrelevant or insufficient material, particularly where the officer has a consistently good service record and the adverse findings relate only to performance and not integrity; such an order violates Article 14 and is arbitrary.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and the appellant is treated as having retired on attaining the normal age of superannuation on April 30, 1986, with entitlement to pensionary benefits.
C.V.SUBBA RAO, O.P.Sharma, S.U.SINGH, SHOBHA DIXIT
JUDGMENT:- Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. In this case, the appellant who was an Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Haryana, after 35 years of service has been compulsorily retired in public interest by the State Government of Haryana by impugned order dated February 1, 1985 purporting to act under R. 3-25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services. Rules, Vol. 1, Part 1. From the record of service it appears that based upon the report of the review committee in, 1979; the appellant was retained in service after he attained the age of 50 years and thereafter on the report of the second Review Committee in 1983, he was continued in service on his attainment of the age of 55 years, on the basis of his record of service which was uniformly good right from the year 1964-65 to the year 1981-82. When he was just on the verge of retirement, the State Government directed his compulsory retirement under R. 3-25(d) of the Rules on the basis of two adverse entries made by the then Excise & Taxation Commissioner. Although the appellant pleaded that he earned a good report from the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner who had opportunity to watch his performance during the years in question, the State Government in the return filed before the High Court contested the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was retired under R. 3.25(d) of the Rules as the adverse entries made by the Commissioner showed that he was of doubtful integrity. This however is not borne out by the two adverse entries made by the Commissioner showing that his performance in the year 1982-81 was average and that in the year 1983-84 below average which did not pertain to his integrity. The appellant alleged that he had incurred the, displeasure of the Commissioner for certain reasons. While his representation against the adverse entries made by the Commissioner was, pending consideration, the Government passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement and thereafter rejected the representation, The power of compulsory retirement under R. 3.25.(d) of the Rules can be exercised subject to the conditions, mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it, is in public interest to do so. The test. in such cases is public interest as laid down by this Court in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, (1971) 1 SCR 791 :(AIR 1971 SC 40). It does not appear that there was any material on the basis of which the State Government could have formed an opinion that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire the appellant at the age of 57 years. There was really no justification for his compulsory retirement in public interest. The impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant under R. 3.25(d) of the Rules must therefore be struck down as being arbitrary.
3. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order passed by the State Government dated February 1, 1985 for compulsory retirement of the appellant under R. 3.25(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules is quashed and he shall be treated as having retired from service on attaining his normal age of superannuation on April 30, 1986, and shall be entitled to his pensionary benefits upon that basis. Costs quantified at Rs. 1000/-.
Appeal allowed.