9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of confidential reports for 1964 and 1965. 2. Validity of the order of compulsory retirement dated May 12, 1967. 3. Allegations of mala fides in the adverse entries and non-promotion. 4. Whether adverse entries without specific instances and without hearing the appellant violated natural justice. 5. Whether non-promotion amounted to a penalty requiring a departmental inquiry. 6. Validity of Fundamental Rule 56(j) under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Confidential Reports for 1964 and 1965: The appellant challenged the confidential reports for 1964 and 1965 on the grounds that they did not set out specific instances justifying the adverse entries and were thus contrary to the rules. The court held that the rules regarding confidential reports were departmental instructions and not statutory rules. The rules required a general assessment of work and did not necessitate specific instances unless a specific punishment like censure was awarded. Therefore, the absence of specific instances did not vitiate the reports. 2. Validity of the Order of Compulsory Retirement: The appellant was compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, which allows the appropriate authority to retire a government servant in the public interest after attaining the age of 55 years. The court upheld the validity of Rule 56(j) and found that the appropriate authority had reviewed the appellant's entire service record and formed a bona fide opinion that his retirement was in the public interest. The court stated that if the authority bona fide forms such an opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged in court. 3. Allegations of Mala Fides: The appellant alleged that the adverse entries and non-promotion were made mala fide to favor another officer, Aswath, who had allegations of financial irregularities against him. The court found that the allegations of mala fides were speculative and not supported by evidence. The court noted that the appellant's own high estimate of his work and his feeling of being persecuted were not sufficient to establish mala fides. 4. Natural Justice and Specific Instances: The appellant contended that the adverse entries were made without specific instances and without giving him an opportunity to be heard, thus violating natural justice. The court held that the rules did not require specific instances for adverse entries or an opportunity to be heard before making such entries. The court emphasized that adverse entries were a part of annual assessments and not penalties, and the appellant had the opportunity to make representations against them, which were duly considered. 5. Non-promotion as a Penalty: The appellant argued that non-promotion based on adverse entries amounted to a penalty requiring a departmental inquiry. The court rejected this contention, stating that non-promotion after consideration of a government servant's case does not constitute a penalty under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services Rules. Therefore, no departmental inquiry was necessary for non-promotion. 6. Validity of Fundamental Rule 56(j): The appellant challenged the validity of Rule 56(j) under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing that it was arbitrary. The court referred to its previous decision in Union of India v. Col J.N. Sinha, which upheld the validity of Rule 56(j), stating that it confers an absolute right on the appropriate authority to retire a government servant in public interest. The court found no reason to discard the clear averments made by the respondents regarding the bona fide formation of the opinion to retire the appellant. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals with costs, upholding the validity of the confidential reports for 1964 and 1965, the order of compulsory retirement, and the non-promotion decisions. The court found no merit in the allegations of mala fides and violations of natural justice. The validity of Rule 56(j) was affirmed, and the appellant's case was found to lack sufficient evidence to support his claims.
|
