Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kadir Ahmad vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 30 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)WLN225
JUDGMENT Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 18.5.2000 whereby the petitioner a Forest Guard was retired compulsorily under Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 read with Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.
2. In the return to the writ petition, the respondents have made attempt to justify the impugned order of retirement by giving details of punishment awarded to the petitioner thus:
(i) The D.F.O., Kota stopped two annual grade increments by cumulative effect vide order dated 15.5.1986;
(ii) The D.F.O., Bundi stopped one annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 30.3.1999;
(iii) The D.F.O., Kota had imposed the penalty of censure vide order dated 15.10.1987;
(iv) The D.F.O., Bundi' stopped two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18.8.1990;
(v) The details of remarks made in annual confidential Reports of the petitioner are as under:
Year Result ______ ________ 1982-83 Average 1983-84 Average 1985-86 Below Average 1990-91 Integrity Doubtful 1994-95 Very Good 1995-96 Good 1996-97 Satisfactory 1998-99 Satisfactory
3. The petitioner has established by placing the order dated 4.7.1998 (Annex.1) that after completion of satisfactory service of 18 years, he was granted selection scale.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that after the petitioner was granted selection scale all the adverse entries stood washed off and they could not have been considered.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioner lost his efficiency and had become a dead-wood and he was a fit person to be retired compulsorily.
6. I have pondered over the rival submissions.
7. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1959) 1 SCC 529, while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement indicated that public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service while services of dishonest or corrupt or those who are almost dead wood, are to be dispensed with. In order to find out whether any government 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 government servant has to be taken. Performance of a government is reflected in annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning efficiency, honesty or integrity of a government servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. If character roll is studded with adverse entries or overall categorisation of employee is poor and there is a material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such government 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, whole bundle would disperse.
8. In M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors., , their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated requirements to sustain inferences of the doubtful integrity. It was observed that the government officer enjoying high reputation throughout his career, suddenly branded as person of unreliable integrity and unfit to be entrusted with any position of responsibility in government service should be adjudged from the available material. Doubtful integrity should not be entertained merely on surmises. It should be based on preponderance of probability as judged from the standard of a reasonable man. The maxim of 'Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus' (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was propounded that the maxim is not unexceptional but it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of administrative law.
9. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, , their Lordhships of Supreme Court indicated the broad principles relating to compulsory retirement as under:
(i) Whether the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short out to avoid departmental enquiry where such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
10. Keeping in view the aforequoted principles I have closely scruitinised the material on record. In the order dated 4.5.1998 (Annx. 1) the respondents had stated that the petitioner was granted selection scale after completion of 18 years satisfactory service. The adverse entries as alleged by the respondents in the return, were not treated as unsatisfactory and the petitioner was given selection scale. This fact is in favour of the petitioner in view of the ratio indicated in State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (supra). I do not find any other material on record, on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the petitioner had outlived his utility as a public servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood. From the available material no conclusion could be drawn that the petitioner, a low paid employee, was a fit person to be retired compulsorily. I am satisfied that the impugned order of compulsory retirement of petitioner cannot be sustained.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 18.5.2000, which was published in news paper on 26.5.2000, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service as if the impugned order dated 18.5.2000 was never passed. The petitioner shall be allowed to join his service forthwith. The arrears of salary etc. shall be paid to petitioner within sixty days from today. There shall be no order as to costs.