1990 (4) TMI 309 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's compulsory retirement.
2. Whether the compulsory retirement was in public interest or for punitive reasons.
3. Compliance with Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appellant's compulsory retirement:
The appellant was compulsorily retired by a notification dated October 26, 1988, issued under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code. The appellant argued that the order was punitive and not in public interest, as it was based on a memorandum dated October 6, 1988, which cited grave financial irregularities. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition without considering these contentions, leading to the present appeal.

2. Whether the compulsory retirement was in public interest or for punitive reasons:
The appellant contended that the order of compulsory retirement was a disguised punishment based on allegations of misconduct, which were not communicated to him, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent-State argued that the order was made in public interest under Rule 74(b)(ii) and did not cast any stigma on the appellant's service career. The Court noted that the basis of the order was the memorandum and the report of the Deputy Development Commissioner, which indicated serious financial irregularities. This demonstrated that the order was punitive and not genuinely in public interest.

3. Compliance with Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code:
Rule 74(b)(ii) allows the appointing authority to retire a government servant in public interest after giving three months' notice or equivalent pay. The Court found that the order, although couched in innocuous terms, was based on allegations of misconduct and was therefore punitive. The respondent-State's reliance on the report and memorandum without providing the appellant an opportunity to defend himself contravened the procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.

4. Violation of principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution:
The Court emphasized that even if an order is framed in innocuous language, it can be challenged if it is based on misconduct and intended as punishment. The appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, violating Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that the order was not made bona fide and was for collateral purposes, making it arbitrary and illegal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the impugned order of compulsory retirement, holding it as punitive and not in public interest. The Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and costs, emphasizing that the order violated principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution.