1998 (9) TMI 667 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of Dereliction in Duty
2. Allegations of Mala Fides by Screening Committee
3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Compulsory Retirement

Summary:

1. Allegations of Dereliction in Duty:
The appellant, a high-ranking officer in the Indian Revenue Service, faced compulsory retirement due to alleged derelictions in duty. The Screening Committee focused on three specific instances:
- Orkay Silk Mills Ltd.: The appellant was accused of preparing a 100-page adjudication order too quickly, imposing a penalty without a show cause notice, and demanding duty without fully considering the party's claims.
- Golden Tobacco Co.: The appellant was implicated in delaying important cases, allegedly instructing subordinates to keep investigations in abeyance.
- Jain Brothers: The appellant was accused of demanding Rs. 10 lakhs from the Jain Brothers, who were arrested for importing and assembling Honda car components illegally.

2. Allegations of Mala Fides by Screening Committee:
The appellant contended that the Screening Committee, particularly member Shri M.L. Wadhawan, acted with mala fides due to personal enmity. However, the Court found no persuasive evidence to support this claim and rejected the contention of mala fides.

3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Compulsory Retirement:
The Court scrutinized whether the Screening Committee's conclusion of "doubtful integrity" was based on sufficient evidence. The Court noted:
- Orkay Silk Mills Ltd.: The quick preparation of the adjudication order could be seen as an achievement rather than a dereliction. The imposition of a penalty without a show cause notice was not necessarily calculated to help the defaulter.
- Golden Tobacco Co.: The inference against the appellant was deemed tenuous without verifying the circumstances from the Deputy Director who issued the instructions.
- Jain Brothers: The allegation of demanding Rs. 10 lakhs was based on hearsay without verification from the person who allegedly conveyed the demand.

The Court emphasized that judicial scrutiny is permissible if the order is arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no evidence. It concluded that the Screening Committee's decision lacked sufficient evidence and was not reasonable.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of premature compulsory retirement was set aside. The department was directed to work out the reliefs to be granted to the appellant as a result of this judgment.