Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. the principle of the above decision was followed in Dr. N.V.Puttabhatta v.State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2185, a decision rendered by A.N.Grover and G.K.Mitter , J.J. Indeed, the contention of the appellant in this case was that since an order of compulsory retirement has adverse effects upon the career and prospects of the government servant, the order must be passed in accordance with principles of natural justice. It was contended that before passing the order, a notice to show cause against the order proposed must be given to the government servant . Reliance was placed upon the decisions in Binapani Devi and Kraipak. This contention was negatived following the decision in J.N.Sinha. It was also pointed out, applying the principles of Shivacharana that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor does it involve any stigma or implication or misbehaviour. Another contention urged in this case was that the order of compulsory retirement was based upon uncommunicated adverse remarks and that the appellant was also not afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the same. At the relevant time, no appeal lay against the orders passed upon the representation. Dealing with the said contention, the court observed:

28. The blurring of the dividing line between a quasi- judicial order and an administrative order, pointed out in Kraipak has no effect upon the above position, more so when compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor does it imply any stigma. Kraipak- or for that matter, Maneka Gandhi - cannot be understood as doing away with the concept of subjective satisfaction.

29. On the above premises, it follows, in our respectful opinion that the view taken in J.N. Sinha is the correct one viz., principles of natural justice are not attracted in a case of compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(j) or a rule corresponding to it. In this context, we may point out a practical difficulty arising from the simultaneous operation of two rules enunciated in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra. On one hand, it is stated that only the entries of last ten years should be seen and on the other hand, it is stated that if there are any adverse remarks therein, they must not only be communicated but the representations made against them should be considered and disposed of before they can be taken into consideration. Where do we draw the line in the matter of disposal of representation. Does it mean, disposal by the appropriate authority alone or does it include appeal as well. Even if the appeal is dismissed, the government servant may file a revision or make a representation to a still higher authority. He may also approach a court or Tribunal for expunging those remarks. Should the government wait until all these stages are over. All that would naturally take a long time by which time, these reports would also have become stale. A government servant so minded can adopt one or the other proceeding to keep the matter alive. This is an additional reason for holding that the principle of M.E. Reddy should be preferred over Brij Mohan Singh Chopra and Baidyanath Mahapatra, on the question of taking into consideration uncommunicated adverse remarks.