Union Of India Etc. VS. M.E. Reddy And Anr

Reporting JudgeFazalali

Linked as:

Summary

The respondent in the two appeals was compulsorily retired by an order dated 20-4-74 under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958. The respondent challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A single Judge of that Court allowed the petition. The said decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal.

Allowing the appeals by certificate the Court,

HELD: 1. An analysis of Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 clearly shows that the following essential ingredients of the Rule must be satisfied before an order of compulsory retiring a Government servant is passed: (i) that the member or the service must have completed 30 years of qualifying service or the age of SO years (as modified by notification dated 16-7-1969); (ii) that the Government has an absolute right to retire the Government servant concerned because the word

"require" confers an unqualified right on the Central Government servant; (iii) that the order must be passed in public interest; and (iv) that three months' previous notice in writing shall be given to the Government servant concerned before the order is passed. [742 G-H. 713 A-B] .

The provision gives an absolute right to the Government and not merely a discretion, and, therefore implied it excludes the rules of natural justice. [743 B]

2. Compulsory retirement after the employee has put in a sufficient number of years of service having qualified for full pension is neither a punishment nor a stigma so as to attract the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In fact, after an employee has served for 25 or 30 years and is retired on full pensionary benefits, it cannot be said that he suffered any real prejudice. [743 C-

3. The object of Rule 16(3) is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and initiative in the State service. It is not necessary that a good officer may continue to be efficient for all times to come. It may be that there may be some officers who may possess a better initiative and higher standard of efficiency and if given chance the work of the Government might show marked improvement. In such a case compulsory retirement of an officer who fulfils the conditions of Rule 16(3) is undoubtedly in public interest and is not passed by way of punishment. Similarly, there may be cases of officers who are corrupt or of doubtful integrity and who may be considered fit for being compulsorily retired in public interest. Since 737

they have almost reached the fag end of their career and their retirement would A not cast any aspersion, nor does it entail any civil consequences. Of course, it may be said that if such officers were allowed to continue they would have drawn their salary until the usual date of retirement.

But, this is not an absolute right which can be claimed by an officer who has put in 30 years of service or attained the age of 50 years. Rule 16(3) does nothing of the sort of attaching stigma. [743 D-H]

4. The jurisprudential philosophy of Rule 16(3) and other similarly worded provisions like F.R. 56(j) and other rules relating to Government servants is noteworthy. Rule 16(3) as it stands is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution and is controlled only by those contingencies which are expressly mentioned in Article 311. If the order of retirement under Rule 16(3) does not attract Article 311(2), it is manifest that no stigma of punishment is involved. The order is passed by the highest authority, namely, the Central Government in the name of the President and expressly excludes the application of rules of natural justice. [744A-C]

The safety valve of public interest is the most powerful and the strongest safeguard against any abuse or colourable exercise of power under this Rule. Moreover, when the Court is satisfied that the exercise of power under the rule amounts to a colourable exercise of jurisdiction or is arbitrary or malafide, it can always be struck down. While examining this aspect of the matter the Court would have to act only on the affidavits, documents annexures, notifications and other papers produced before it by the parties. It cannot delve deep into the confidential or secret records of the Government to fish out materials to prove that the order is arbitrary or malafide. The court, has, however, the undoubted power subject to any privilege or claim that may be made by the State. to send for the relevant. confidential personal file of the Government servant and peruse it for its own satisfaction without using it as evidence. [744 C-E]

The main object of Rule 16(3) is to instil a spirit of dedication and dynamism in the working of the State Services so as to ensure purity and cleanliness in the administration which is the paramount need of the hour as the services are one of the pillars of our great democracy. Any element or constituent of the service which is found to be lax or corrupt, inefficient or not up to the work or has outlived his utility has to be weeded out. Rule 16(3) provides the methodology for achieving the object. [744 E-G;

Before the Central Government invokes the power under Rule 16(3), it must take particular care that the rule is not used as a ruse for victimisation by getting rid of honest and unobliging officers in order to make way for incompetent favourites of the Government which is bound to lead to serious demoralisation in the service and defeat the laudable object which the rule seeks to sub-serve. If any such case comes to the notice of the Government the officer responsible for advising the Government must be strictly dealt with. . [744 G-H]

Compulsory retirement contemplated by Rule 16(3) is designed to infuse the administration with initiative and activism so that it is made poignant and piquant, specious and subtle so as to meet the expanding needs of the nation which require explanation of "fields and pastures now". Such a retirement 738

involves no stain or stigma nor does it entail any penalty or civil consequences. In fact the rule merely seeks to strike a just balance between the termination of the completed career of a tired employee and maintenance of top efficiency in the diverse activities of the administration.

[745 A-B]

An order of compulsory retirement on one had causes no prejudice to the Government servant who is made to lead a restful life enjoying full pensionary and other benefits and on the other gives a new animation and equanimity to the services The employees should try to understand the true spirit behind the rule which is not to penalise them but amounts just to a fruitful incident of the service made in the larger interest of the country. Even, if the employee feels that he has suffered, he should derive sufficient solace and consolation from the fact that this is his small contribution to the country for every good cause claims its martyr. [745 B-D]

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., [1955] S.C.R. 26; T. G.

Shivcharan Singh and Ors. v. The State of Haryana A.I.R.

1965 S.C. 280; Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha and Anr.,

[1971] 1 SCR 791; M. V. Puttabhatta v. The State of Mysore and Anr., [1973] 1 SCR 304; State of Assam & Anr. etc. v.

Prasanta Kumar Das etc. [19731 3 S.C.R. 158 & 167; Tara Singh etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [1975] 3 SCR 1002;

Mayenghaon Rahamohan Singh v. The Commissioner (Admn.) Manipur and Ors., [1977] 1 SCR 791; applied.

Before passing an order under Rule 16(3), it is not an entry here or an entry there which has to be taken into consideration by the Government but the overall picture of the officer during the long years of his service that he put in has to be considered from the point cf view of achieving higher standards of efficiency and dedication so as to be retained even after the officer has put in the requisite number of years of service. [750 C-D]

Under the various rules on the subject, it is not every adverse entry or remark that has to be communicated to the officer concerned. The superior officer may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. Some of these remarks may be purely innocuous or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. It will indeed be difficult if not possible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer from close quarters are in a position to know the nature and character, not only of his performance but also of the reputation he enjoys. Therefore on the ground of non communication of adverse remarks, the impugned orders cannot be set aside. [748? G-H, 749 A]

R. L. Butail v. Union of India and ors., [1971] 2 SCR 55 and union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha and Anr., [1971] 1

SCR 791; applied.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Ors.,

[1978] 1 SCR 721; referred to.

Madan Mohan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1973] 4

S.C.C 166= [1973] 1 SCR 630; distinguished.

All that is necessary is that the Government of India, before passing an order under Rule 16(3) should consider the report of the Review Committee 739

which is based on full and complete analysis of the history of the service of A the employee concerned. [753 F-G]

In the instant case, it was clearly pleaded by the appellants ill the High Court that the report of the Review Committee was in fact considered by the Government of India before passing the impugned order. An examination of the confidential file also confirms this. [753 G-H 754 A]

State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and Ors. [1978] 1

SCR 721 and S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India and Anr.,

[19,9] 2 SCR 202; distinguished.

Chief Security officer, Eastern Railway & Anr. v. Ajay Chandra Bagchi [1975] 2 SLR 660 (Calcutta); overruled.

In the instant case (a) there is no legal error in the impugned order passed by the Government of India, retiring Mr. Reddy. The order is not arbitrary as could be seen from the material of the record. The Government of India acted on the orders passed by the Home Minister concerned who had considered the report of the Review Committee in its various aspects. There is nothing to show that Reddy was victimised in any way. On the other hand, the history Of his service shows that he was always given his due. He was taken by the I.P.S. and allotted the year 1952. He was promoted to the selection grade also at the proper time. The order of suspension was withdrawn and the department enquiry was dropped and the officer was reinstated and later promoted as D.I.G. These facts completely militate against the concept of victimisation. [756 F-H, 757 A]

(b) The impugned order is a bonafide order and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. [757 G]

See the full content of this document

Extract

Union Of India Etc. VS. M.E. Reddy And Anr

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.E. REDDY AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/09/1979

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION: 1980 AIR 563 1980 SCR (1) 736 1980 SCC (2) 15

CITATOR INFO : R 1981 SC 594 (6)

RF 1982 SC 793 (5)

R 1984 SC 630 (4)

R 1992 SC1020 (1,5,14,15,29)

ACT: Compulsory retirement-order passed in terms of Section 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958, whether in violation of Articles 311(2) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 1977.

From the Judgement and order dated 17-11-1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 591-592/76.

U. R. Lalit R. N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra for the Appellant in C. A. 12/77.

M. Abdul Khadar and G. Narayana Rao for the Appellant in C.A. 13/177.

T. S. Krishna Murthy Iyer and A. Subba Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FAZAL ALI, J.-These two appeals (one by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other by the Union of India) by certificate are directed against a Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17-11- 1977 confirming the decision of a Single Judge by which an order passed by the Central Government compulsorily retiring M. E.

Reddy, respondent No. I (hereinafter referred to 740

as Reddy) from service in public interest was quashed in a writ petition filed before the High Court.

The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass particularly in view of the fact that we have decided not to go into the question of malafide alleged against respondent No. 3, Mr. K. Brahmanand Reddy before the High Court because Reddy in a previous Writ filed in the High Court against the order of suspension had expressly withdrawn all the allegations against Mr. K. Brahmanand Reddy respondent No. 3 in the High Court. We shall, however, touch the fringes of this question so far as it directly affects the order impugned passed by the Government of India.

Reddy started his career in the Police Service as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1948. In the year 1958 Reddy was appointed to the Indian Police Service and 1952 was the year of his allotment. On 31-7-1958 Reddy was promoted as Superintendent of Police in the State of Andhra ...

See the full content of this document