1998 Supreme(SC) 1194

1998(9) Supreme 150
Supreme Court of India
(From Gujarat High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
The State of Gujarat & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Suryakant Chunilal Shah -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6043 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14900 of 1998)
Decided on 3-12-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. H. Wahi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. J.S. Wad, Advocate.

Important Points
1. Where there was no adverse remarks in the character roll entries and at no point of time integrity was doubted, merely on the basis of alleged involvement in criminal cases of allegedly issuing bogus cement permit order compulsorily retiring an employee could not be sustained.
2. Whether the integrity of an employee is doubtful or not, whether he is efficient and honest, is the function of the Appointing Authority or the immediate superior of that employee to consider and assess. It is not the function of the Review Committee to brand, and that too, off hand, an employee as a person of doubtful integrity.

Headnote:Service Law-Compulsory retirement-On ground of doubtful integrity-Respondent-employee in­volved in two criminal cases for allegedly issuing bogus cement permits in names of non-existing bogus entities and fabricating bogus permits-No adverse remarks in character roll entries-Integrity not doubted at any stage-Review com­mittee doubting integrity merely on basis of criminal cases but recommending to continue in service to inflict severe punishment depending upon result in criminal cases-Government ordering compulsory retirement - Not justified-Merely be­cause of his involvement in crimi­nal cases it could not be said he lacked integrity-Order of compulso­ry retirement not in public interest-Order passed for collateral purpose of his immediate removal-It is not the function of Review Committee to brand an employee as a person of doubtful integrity - It is the function of appointing authority or immediate supervisor-Order of compulsory retirement was set aside.

       Held : In order to find out whether any Govt. servant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient administration, an objective view of overall performance of that Govt. servant has to be taken before deciding, after he has attained the age of 50 years, either to retain him further in service or to dispense with his services in public interest, by giving him three months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof. The performance of a Govt. servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discern­ing the efficiency, honesty or integrity of a Govt. servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse entries or the overall categorisation of the employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a Govt. servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of “Integ­rity”. If this is missing the whole bundle would disperse. A Govt. servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the Govt. servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries so that the Govt. servant, to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous conduct justified such an entry, to improve his performance. (Paras 22, 23 & 24)

       Applying the above principles to the instant case, what comes out is that in compulsorily retiring the respondent from serv­ice, the authorities themselves were uncertain about the action which was to be taken ultimately against him. In fact, there was hardly any material on the basis of which a bona fide opinion could have been formed that it would be in public interest to retire the respondent from service compulsorily. The material which was placed before the Review Committee has already been mentioned above. To repeat, respond­ent was promoted in 1981; the character roll entries for the next two years were not available on record; there were no adverse entries in the respondent’s character roll about his integrity; he was involved in two criminal cases, in one of which a final report was submitted while in the other a charge sheet was filed. Although there was no entry in his character roll that the respondent’s integrity was doubtful, the Review Committee, on its own, probably on the basis of the FIRs lodged against the respondent, formed the opinion that the respondent was a person of doubtful integrity. The Review Committee was constituted to assess the merits of the respondent on the basis of the character roll entries and other relevant material and to recom­mend whether it would be in public interest to compulsorily retire him from service or not. The Review Committee, after taking into consider­ation the character roll entries and noticing that there were no adverse entries and his integrity was, at no stage, doubted, proceed­ed, in excess of its jurisdiction, to form its own opinion with regard to respondent’s integrity merely on the basis of the FIRs lodged against him. Whether the integrity of an employee is doubtful or not, whether he is efficient and honest, is the function of the Appointing Authority or the immediate superior of that employee to consider and assess. It is not the function of the Review Committee to brand, and that too, off hand, an employee as a person of doubtful integrity. Moreover, the Review Committee did not recommend compulsory retire­ment. It was of the opinion that the respondent had committed grave irregularity and that he must be retained in service so that he may ultimately be dealt with and punished severely. The Secretary and the Chief Secretary, who considered the recommendations of the Review Committee, had other ideas. They thought that the investigation and subsequent prosecution of the respondent would take a long time and that it would be better to immediately dispense with his services by giving him the temptation of withdrawing the criminal cases and retir­ing him compulsorily from service, provided he does not approach the court against the order of compulsory retirement. This proposal too was not immediately acted upon and it was thought that nobody could say whether the order of compulsory retirement would be challenged by the respondent before the court or he would merely submit to it on the temptation that criminal cases against him would be withdrawn. It was, at this stage, that the order of compulsory retirement was passed. (Para 25)

       The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a Govt. servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead-wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involve­ment in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee. (Para 26)

       Held consequently : There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integ­rity was not doubted at any time, the character roll entries subse­quent to the respondent’s promotion to the post of Asstt. Food Con­troller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the con­clusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest. The Division Bench, in our opinion, was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directing reinstatement of the respondent. (Para 27)