IMPORTANT POINT
Where, pending disciplinary action, officer was kept under suspension and despite sufficient time available enquiry was not completed and there was no adverse entries in service records, order of compulsory retirement without waiting for conclusion of enquiry was held to be unjustified especially when the officer successfully crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 as well as 55.

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.

2. The respondent, during the relevant time, was an Executive Engineer working in the Narmada Development Department of the State of Gujarat. He was placed under suspension on 22.5.1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was initiated against him alleging that he had committed acts of misuse of power in connection with the purchase of Tarpauline. While the respondent was continuing under suspension, the Govt. of Gujarat passed an order of compulsory retirement by invoking Clause (aa) (i) (1) of Rule 161 (1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, with effect from 13.2.1987. The respondent was due to retire on superannuation by the end of August 1988, his date of birth being 17.8.1930. In the order of compulsory retirement, it was stated that the case relating to continuance of the respondent in Govt. service beyond the age of 50 and 55 years was reviewed. The respondent challenged the order of his compulsory retirement before the High Court of Gujarat and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside that order on the ground that the same was punitive in nature and was passed with an oblique purpose to punish the respondent for the charges which were neither investigated nor had the respondent been given reasonable opportunity of hearing. This judgment is challenged before us.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State as also learned counsel for the respondent. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the counsel for the appellant-State that the impugned order is not punitive in nature and that the services of the respondent were dispensed with in public interest. It was argued that the respondent s services were no longer useful and that he had committed acts whereby the State Govt. suffered pecuniary losses. It was also contended that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the State Govt. is not by way of punishment and the respondent is entitled to get all the benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended that the order of compulsory retirement was passed on the specific allegations, for which the respondent was under suspension awaiting formal enquiry, and under that circumstance, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was patently illegal. Reliance was placed on various decisions of this Court.

5. This Court, in a number of cases, had occasion to consider the law relating to compulsory retirement and has laid down various principles. In State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das1, this Court held in paragraph 3 of the judgment as follows :

"It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such decision to retire a government employee compulsorily from service, has to consider the entire record of the government servant including latest reports."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. In State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah2, the State Govt. challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by which the order passed by the Single Judge was set aside. The Division Bench held that the order of compulsory retirement was bad and thereupon the State of Gujarat filed an appeal. In that case, two criminal complaints had been filed against the respondent-Asstt. Food Controller; one alleging that he had illegally issued cement permits to some bogus institutions; and second that he had fabricated some rubber stamps of the Government for the purpose of issuing illegal permits. But, there were no adverse entri