9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Accountant General to retire the appellant. 2. Whether the retirement was in public interest. 3. Legality of the Reviewing Committee's recommendations. 4. Validity of the adverse confidential reports as a basis for retirement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the Accountant General to Retire the Appellant: The appellant challenged the competence of the Accountant General (A.G.) to compulsorily retire him, arguing that he was not the "appropriate authority" as per F.R. 56(j)(i). The appointing authority was the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (C & AG), and the appellant contended that the A.G., being subordinate to the C & AG, lacked the power to retire him. The court clarified that the distinction between "dismissal" and "compulsory retirement" is crucial, and the constitutional bar under Article 311(1) does not apply to compulsory retirement. The Note to F.R. 56 specifies that the authority empowered to make substantive appointments is the appropriate authority to retire government servants. The court found that the A.G. had been vested with the power to appoint Accounts Officers by a Notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 29-11-1972, making him the appropriate authority for compulsory retirement. Thus, the court saw no flaw in the impugned order. 2. Whether the Retirement was in Public Interest: The court emphasized that compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(j)(i) must be justified solely by public interest. The onus is on the Administration to prove that the retirement was necessary in public interest. The court highlighted that security of tenure is crucial for the efficiency of service, and the Administration must ensure that servants are not plagued by uncertainty. The court stated that the exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest. The court found no demonstrable ground to infer mala fides but noted that the validity of the order depended on its support by public interest. The court reviewed the material to determine whether a rational mind could be satisfied that the compulsory retirement was necessary in public interest. 3. Legality of the Reviewing Committee's Recommendations: The appellant argued that the Reviewing Committee was illegal and its recommendations vitiated the A.G.'s order. The court disagreed, stating that the decision to retire was that of the A.G., and the Reviewing Committee's presence was persuasive, not decisive. The court found that the Reviewing Committee's recommendations were based on adverse entries in the appellant's confidential reports, which indicated that the appellant was unable to perform his duties efficiently and effectively. 4. Validity of the Adverse Confidential Reports as a Basis for Retirement: The court examined the adverse confidential reports, which dated from 1961-62 to 1970. The appellant had been promoted in 1961 and had drawn increments for over a decade without hindrance. The appellant pointed out that there were no adverse remarks in his confidential reports for the years 1971-72 to 1975-76. The court found that the Reviewing Committee and the A.G. had ignored these later entries. The court emphasized that an officer who had served continuously for 14 years, crossed the efficiency bar, and reached the maximum salary in the scale, with no adverse entries for five years before retirement, could not be retired based on outdated adverse reports. The court concluded that the order of compulsory retirement was flawed because it ignored vital material and relied on obsolete information. The court quashed the order but allowed the A.G. to take a fresh decision based on legal material and principles. The appellant was entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 2,000. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the order of compulsory retirement was quashed, and the court left the law to take its course. The appellant was entitled to costs of Rs. 2,000.
|
