1994 (8) TMI 317 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the compulsory retirement order.
2. Evaluation of service records and adverse remarks.
3. Application of judicial review principles.
4. Consideration of public interest vs. individual interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Compulsory Retirement Order:

The central issue was whether the government exercised its power to compulsorily retire the appellant under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and G.A. Department circular No. 30495/GA, dated November 24, 1987, in a legal and bona fide manner. The appellant argued that the adverse remarks for the period 1.4.1987 to 29.2.1988 were made due to mala fides and personal vendetta by the Principal. The court examined if the compulsory retirement was based solely on these adverse remarks and whether the Review Committee considered the appellant's entire service record.

2. Evaluation of Service Records and Adverse Remarks:

The court scrutinized the appellant's service record from 1973-74 onwards. The records showed that the appellant's performance was consistently commended as good, sincere, and satisfactory until the adverse remarks in 1987-88. The appellant was promoted as a Reader in 1991, despite the adverse remarks. The court noted that the Review Committee did not consider the appellant's entire service record, focusing only on the adverse remarks for 1987-88. This selective consideration was deemed arbitrary.

3. Application of Judicial Review Principles:

The court referred to established legal principles, emphasizing that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not entail loss of retiral benefits. It is meant to remove "dead wood" and ensure public interest. The court cited precedents, including *Shyam Lal v. State of U.P.* and *Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha*, to underline that the power of compulsory retirement must be exercised bona fide and in public interest. The court also highlighted that judicial review is limited to examining whether the decision was arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no evidence.

4. Consideration of Public Interest vs. Individual Interest:

The court balanced public interest against individual interest, noting that an officer's entire service record, especially recent performance, should be considered before making a decision. The court found that the government failed to consider the appellant's consistent good performance before and after the adverse remarks in 1987-88. The court emphasized that the decision to compulsorily retire the appellant was based on a solitary adverse report, ignoring his overall satisfactory service record.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the government's decision to compulsorily retire the appellant was arbitrary and failed to consider the totality of his service record. The court set aside the order of compulsory retirement, reinstating the appellant with all consequential benefits and awarding costs of Rs. 5,000.

Judgment:

The appeal was allowed, the order of compulsory retirement was set aside, and the appellant was granted all consequential benefits along with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.