Judgement

SEN, J. :- This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated July 24, 1985 raises two questions, namely : (1) Was the Union of India justified in passing an order dated September 17, 1982 in terms of FR 25 declaring the appellant to be unfit to cross the efficiency bar as Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department at the stage of Rs. 590 in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 350-590-EB-900 as from October 5, 1966? And (2) Is the appellant entitled to interest on the delayed payment of his pension?

2. This litigation has had a chequered career. The appellant who was an Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department was placed under suspension pending a departmental enquiry under R. 12(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on September 3, 1959. He remained on suspension till May 25, 1970 when on repeated representations the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department revoked the order of suspension and he was reinstated in service. During the aforesaid period of suspension, adverse remarks in his confidential remarks for the period between April 1, 1957 and August 31, 1957 and between April 1, 1958 and March 31, 1959 were communicated to him on December 16, 1959. After a period of nearly five years, the departmental proceedings culminated in an order of dismissal from service dated March 12, 1964 but the same on appeal by him, was set aside by the President of India by order dated October 4, 1966 with a direction for the holding of a fresh departmental inquiry under R. 29(l)(c) of the Rules, with a further direction that he shall continue to remain under suspension. The order of suspension was revoked by the Chief Engineer on May 8, 1970 but the departmental proceedings were kept alive. As result of this, the appellant was reinstated in service on May 25, 1970. Immediately thereafter, he made representation to the Department to pass an order under FR 54 for payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension i.e. the period between September 3, 1959 and May 25, 1970 but the same was rejected on the ground that departmental inquiry was still pending.

3. There was little or no progress in the departmental inquiry. On April 25, 1972 the Chief Engineer passed an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant under FR 56(j). The appellant made representations to various authorities, including the President of India, against his compulsory retirement but the same was rejected. Eventually, on July 20, 1972 the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the validity of the order of compulsory retirement and prayed for a direction in terms of FR 54 for payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension and also for payment of all increments to which he was entitled. He also prayed for quashing of the departmental proceedings.

4. A learned single Judge (Wad, J.) by his judgment and order dated January 5, 1981 (reported in 1981 Lab IC 1202) (Delhi) held that the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant was bad in law, not being relatable to FR 560) inasmuch as the action was not based on an overall assessment of the appellants record of service and was in breach of the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated June 23, 1969 laying down the procedure to be followed under FR 56(j). He further held that the action to compulsorily retire the appellant in 1972 under FR 56(j) could not obviously be taken on the basis of adverse remarks for the years 1950-51 when he was an Overseer, nor on the adverse remarks for the years 1957-59 communicated to him on December 16,1959, after a lapse of 20 years and 13 years respectively. Further he observed that the adverse remarks of 1957-59 were not serious enough to cut short the career of the appellant as a Government servant, particularly in view of the fact that t