1977 Supreme(SC) 283

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. GOSWAMI, JASWANT SINGH AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Chandra Mohan Nigam and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1974
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1782 of 1973
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Chandra Mohan Nigam and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 161 of 1974 and 1782 of 1973.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. N. Kacker, Sol.-Gen. (Mr. O. P. Rana, Adv. with him), for Appellant in C.A. No. 161 of 1974 and Respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 1782 of 1973; Mr. S. N. Kacker, Sol.-Gen. (Mr. Girish Chandra, Adv. with him), for Appellant in C. A. No. 1782 of 1973; Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr. Adv. (Mrs. S. K. Bagga, Miss Meera Bali and Miss Rani Arora, Advs. with him), for Respondent No. 1 in both the Appeals.

Headnote:

All India Services Rules 1958 - Sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 311 (2) - Order of compulsory retirement – Employment and service – Quash of order - Whether it was a case of oversight - Whether that ground alone would have weighed with authority in dismissing public servant - Whether instructions can be elevated to status of statutory rules or even constitutional directions as found by learned single Judge - Whether all aforesaid instructions issued by Government are mandatory or not do not call for a decision in these appeals - First respondent was recruited in Indian Administrative Service in Cadre as a War-service candidate and he joined service on March - For purpose of seniority he was allotted - He was promoted to senior scale - He was appointed Commissioner and Gorakhpur Divisions - On June he was posted as Secretary Local Self Department in State Government - He was appointed Judicial Member of Board of Revenue - By an order President of India in consultation with Government of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of power conferred by sub-rule (3) of rule 16 of All India Services Rules 1958 passed impugned order of compulsory retirement of respondent in public interest on expiry of three months from date of service of order - Respondent challenged said order by a writ application before Allahabad High Court and learned single Judge allowed same on grounds of contravention of justifiable and binding rules and because order was based on consideration of irrelevant matters and was also vitiated by bias – Held, Compulsory retirement under Rule 16 (3) is a salutary safeguard in armory of Government for maintenance of the services in trim and fitness - Rule 16 (3) is a constant reminder to slacker sluggish and inefficient not to speak of those who may be dishonest or unscrupulous by reputation beyond redemption - At a reasonable point of service a stage is reached when Government reserves its undoubted right to have a second look at officers whether their retention in employment would be useful in public interest - That is the role of Rule 16 (3) - Rule 16 (3) with the instructions is a warning poster for every Government servant to conduct himself properly diligently and efficiently throughout his service career - Government has advanced time of first review by amendment of Rule 16 (3) - As stated earlier there are now two stages in a service career for Government to take a decision to refurbish invigorate and stimulate Service and with that sole object a decision has to be fairly taken well in time under Rule 16 (3) in accordance with published procedure - While purity in administration is certainly to be desired security and morale of Service have also to be maintained - It is because of these high considerations that Government has issued appropriate and reasonable instructions to guide authorities in passing orders for premature retirement - Instructions clearly show that having arrived at an assessment in favor of further continuance in service or so there would ordinarily be no occasion for changing assessment during next three years so that an annual review would serve little practical purpose - Principle behind this instruction is that sword of Damocles must not hang over officer every six months after he attains age of fifty years - Court find that records of service of respondent and other papers were produced by learned Advocate General before High Court without any objection and without claiming any privilege with regard to those documents - That being the factual position court are not inclined to consider whether course adopted by High Court in this case is open to objection - It will however be proper to observe that when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged as arbitrary or mala fide by making clear and specific allegations it will then be certainly necessary for Government to produce all the necessary materials to rebut such pleas to satisfy court by voluntarily producing such documents as will be a complete answer to plea - It will be for Government also to decide whether at that stage privilege should be claimed with regard to any particular document - Service record of a Government servant in a proceeding of this nature cannot be said to be privileged document which should be shut out from inspection - Impugned order of compulsory retirement as found above was made on recommendation of second Review Committee and that is in teeth of conditions of service flowing from instructions of Home Ministry and hence cannot be sustained - High Court was right in quashing said order - Appeals are dismissed