IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial scrutiny of an order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if order is either arbitrary or malafide or if it is based on no evidence.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Order of compulsory retirement of appellant on a report holding appellant guilty of leaking official documents-Appellant was office Superintendent Grade-II-Charge against him was that he supplied "absentee" statement to a co-employee who in turn utilized same in a case filed by him against Railways-Question whether punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon petitioner was highly disproportionate to guilt of supplying absentee statement when petitioner had long blemishless service of 31 years?-Document regarding absentee details of co-worker was neither confidential nor privileged information-High Court committed error in not interfering with punishment which was vitiated on account of disproportionality-Impugned order was liable to be set aside-Appellant held entitled to all monetary, retiral and consequential benefits.
       Held : It is true that the appellant has supplied a document containing information regarding the absentee details of a co-worker which is neither confidential or privileged information nor the appellant was under any official communication prohibiting him to supply the same. It was a right of the employee concerned to obtain the information from the office. Therefore, the appellant bonafide believed that he had not committed any offence. Learned counsel appearing for the Railways, in his reply, referred to some penalties imposed on the appellant on earlier occasion. The punishment imposed, in those cases, are in the nature of stoppage of privilege passes and censure. According to the appellant, no other penalty or punishment admittedly was not communicated to the appellant. The appellant himself has admitted that he had issued the absentee details to a co-worker in good faith and bonafide. Just because an employee is facing litigation, he does not lose his right to get the information to which he has a right, so long as the same is not barred. Moreover, furnishing of such information has not done or caused any damage to the office except causing some inconvenient situation to the Railways in contesting the case of an employee and the Railway Administration was confronted with the said absentee statement which prompted the Railways to initiate action against the appellant. The stoppage of two sets of privilege passes on 20.01.1998 is for the period after the retirement of the appellant on 01.04.1996. (Paras 11 and 12)
       We are of the opinion that the instant case is a glaring example of abuse of discretionary power of the Disciplinary Authority as the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the appellant, who has put in 31 years of long service only because he has supplied the details of absentation to one of the employees, which was neither confidential nor a privileged document. In any event, the appellant bonafide believed that he was right in furnishing the details which the employee had right to ask for. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the High Court and the Tribunal should have held that the punishment imposed is vitiated on account of the disproportionality. (Para 15)
       No material on record was placed before the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority. Tribunal and before the High Court to reasonably form an opinion that compulsory retirement was in public interest. The case on hand is also not a case of doubtful integrity. The impugned action of compulsorily retiring the appellant from service can be termed as arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the appellant had outlived his utility as a member of railway service and had become a deadwood which had to be chopped off. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-Leave granted.

2. The above appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 10285/CAT/2003 wherein the High Court as dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-herein and confirmed the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement.

The short facts are as follows :-

3. The appellant was appointed in the Northern Railways in Ministerial Service on 14.7.1965 and was due to retire on 31.5.2002. The appellant, while working as Head Clerk in the Northern Railways was issued a Merit Certificate, wherein his work and conduct had been highly commended. The appellant was also selected for being promoted as Office Superintendent Grade-II. However, he was not given posting of the supervisory post. A junior to the appellant was favoured with the said posting and the appellant had protested against the favoured treatment and in the process he incurred the displeasure of his superior officers, particularly, respondent No. 2. One of the employees sought for the "absentee statement of tool room shop from the appellant. The said "absentee" statement was given by the appellant to the said employee. This "absentee" statement was used by the employee in his petition filed against the Railways challenging the disciplinary action against him. This act on the part of the appellant was viewed as a mis-conduct and leakage of the official information. Charge-sheet was issued to the appellant alleging act of mis-conduct against him. The charge-sheet reads thus:

"Article 1

That the said Shri Pritam Singh while functioning as OS-II in time office on 31.08.1995 at 9.00 hrs. took the record of absence statement of tool room pertaining to 20.12.1993 from Shri O.P. Saini and leaked it out with the result the photocopy of absentee statement was attached by Shri Sewa Singh, Harjit Singh and Subeg Singh with their rejoinder to O.A. No. 859/95 filed in CAT/CDG to be used against UOI leaking of absentee statement is a serious misconduct and speaks of doubtful integrity of Shri Pritam Singh.

Thus, he violated the Rule 31(i), (ii) and (iii) of Rly. Services Conduct Rules, 1966."

Sd/-

(HARSH KUMAR)

Dy. CME/ASR

N. Rly. Mech. Workshop,

ASR. 14.11.1995."

4. An enquiry was held against the appellant and a report was submitted holding the appellant guilty of leaking official documents. The appellant, by his memo submitted to his higher officer, admitted the finding of guilt in respect of the charges made against him on 16.03.1996. The said letter reads as follows:-

"DB CME/ASR

R/Sir,

Sub: Findings of the enquiries officer against SF-5

Ref: Your letter No. 727-E/4531/DAR/dated 02.03.1986

Since I have received the findings of the enquiry officer by proving me guilty of the charges. I have nothing to represent against this as such, I admit the charges. The statement given by me during enquiry for denying the charges was not correct. I feel sorry for the same.

I am at the verge of retirement and request your goodself to consider my case sympathetically. I assure your goodself to remain disciplined in future.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Dated: 16.03.1996 (PRITAM SINGH)

Supdt. II

DSC Shoo Asstt."

5. On the basis of the enquiry report and the statement of the appellant, respondent No. 3 passed an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant. The appellant, by his appeal against the order of the respondent No 3 filed before respondent No. 2, gave a detailed account of the revengeful measures practised by the respondent No. 3 against him. It was also pointed out as to how five charge-sheets were issued one aft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1136

IMPORTANT POINTJudicial scrutiny of an order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if order is either arbitrary or malafide or if it is based on no evidence.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial scrutiny of an order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if order is either arbitrary or malafide or if it is based on no evidence.