Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Feeling aggrieved by the said order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed.

The only crucial question that fails for consideration in this Court is whether the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service has been made by the Appointing Authority in public interest in accordance with Rule 74(b)(ii) of Bihar Service Code, 1979 or for any oblique motive as an extraneous consideration or by way of punish- ment casting stigma on the service career of the appellant even though the impugned order was couched in innocuous language.

On a plain reading of the said Rule it appears that the appointing authority has been conferred power to retire a government servant from service in public interest after giving three months' prior notice in writing or an amount equal to three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice on the date on which such government servant com- pletes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. The impugned notification was made on October 26, 1988 by the Government of Bihar intimating the appellant that as he had completed the age of more than 50 years, and in the opinion of the Government of Bihar, in public inter- est he is compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date of issue of this notification. He will be paid salary of three months with allowances in lieu of three months' notice under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Bihar Service Code. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that though the impugned order is couched in innocuous terms and it is made in compliance with the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of Bihar Service Code on appellant's reaching the age of more than 50 years and it does not prima facie appear to cast any stigma on the service career of the appellant yet it has been made by way of punishment casting stigma on the appellant's service career and as such the impugned order is illegal, bad and the same has been made in viola- tion of audi alterem partem rule as well as Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It has been further submitted in this connection that the power to retire the appellant compulso- rily from service has not been made in public interest under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Bihar Service Code but on the basis of the fact finding report given by the Deputy Development Commis- sioner, Dumka by his letter dated September 19, 1987 re- garding grave financial irregularities committed by the appellant in consideration of which a memorandum was pre- pared by the Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Shri T. Nand Kumar on October 6, 1988 recommending to the respondent-State to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Bihar Code. It has also been contended that the basis of the order was made with oblique purposes in consideration of extraneous matter and the impugned order purports to removal from service on certain serious allega- tions of misconduct and consequently it casts a stigma on the service career of the appellant. Such order of compulso- ry retirement from service though appears to be innocuous, has been made by way of punishment and as such it is liable to be set aside and quashed.

On a consideration of the above decisions the legal position that now emerges is that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the government serv- ant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the Court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any miscon- duct of the government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order in such cases cannot deter the Court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned government servant as has been held by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal's case. This being the position the respondent-State cannot defend the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant in the instant case on the mere plea that the order has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which prima facie does not make any imputation or does not cast any stigma on the service career of the appellant. But in view of the clear and specific averments made by the respondent-State that the impugned order has been made to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under the aforesaid Rule as the appellant was found to have committed grave financial irregularities leading to financial loss to the State, the impugned order cannot but be said to have been made by way of punishment. As such, such an order is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as it is arbitrary as it violates principles of natural justice and the same has not been made bona fide. In the premises aforesaid we hold that the impugned order has not been made bona fide but for collateral pur- poses and on extraneous consideration by way of punishment. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and unwanted and so it is liable to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. We fur- ther direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith with full back wages. The respondents will pay costs to the appellant.